Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12796/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12796 of
2010
=========================================================
DINESH
MANJIBHAI BHABHOR & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
BHAVJIBHAI
DEEPABHAI NINAMA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRADIP J PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
HARSHAD K PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR DC SEJPAL, ASST. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 20/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioners
are the original accused. They seek quashing of the complaint at
“ANNEXURE-A”,
bearing M. Case No.3 of 2010, registered with Fatehpura Police
Station, District : Dahod, for the offences punishable under
Section-366 read with Section-114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Complainant
is the father of one Kantaben. He has alleged that the petitioner
No.1 had, on 11.05.2010, enticed his daughter and runaway with her,
in order to get marry. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and
mother of petitioner No.1, respectively. It is alleged that
petitioner No.1 is a married person and also has children from the
first marriage.
3. It
is not in dispute that the daughter of the complainant was, at the
relevant point of time, aged about 19 years. Her date of birth, as
per the school
record, is shown to be 10.06.1991. The petitioners have also
produced the certificate of marriage between petitioner No.1 and
Kantaben, dated 07.07.2010. It is not even the case of the
complainant that his daughter was minor or that she was forcibly
taken out of his care and protection.
4. Under
the circumstances, no case of kidnapping is made out. It is the case
of the complainant that petitioner No.1 is a married person, and
therefore, could not have married to his daughter, when the first
marriage is subsisting. This, however, is a separate issue
altogether. Whether the offence of bigamy is made out or not and who
can complain about such an offence are the issues, which are not
germane in this petition. In that view of the matter, it is not
necessary to examine the evidence of petitioner No.1 that he was
already divorced and that the father of his first wife has also filed
an affidavit to that effect. In the present case, only charge is that
of kidnapping, which I do not find is disclosed.
5. Under
the circumstances, the complaint at “ANNEXURE-A”, bearing
M. CASE NO.3 OF 2010,
registered with FATEHPURA
Police Station, District : DAHOD,
is QUASHED.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top