Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1426/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1426 of 2009
=========================================================
BHAVNABEN
D/O KESHARBHAI CHAUDHARY & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KEYUR A VYAS for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KARTIK PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Respondent
No.2 is stated to have refused to accept the service of notice of
the Court. I have therefore heard the learned advocate for the
petitioner and the learned APP for the State for final disposal of
the petition.
Petitioners
seek quashing of complaint at Annexure D. Few facts as emerging
from the record are as follows:
Admittedly
both the petitioners are major and at the relevant time well over 18
years of age. Petitioner No.1 was previously married to one
Arvindkumar. However, the couple could not live peacefully and they
had separated since quite some and according to the complaint
itself, petitioner No.1 had obtained divorce more than a year back
from her first husband. She thereafter developed intimacy with
petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 who is the sister of the
complainant, wanted to marry petitioner No.2. Apparently, there was
some resistance from the family. Against the wish of the family she
left the house and joined petitioner No.2 and got married on 30th
June 2009. Necessary documents and affidavit to this effect are
placed on record. Annoyed by the action of petitioner No.1, her
brother has filed complaint before the concerned police station on
14th June 2009 alleging, inter alia, that on the date of
the incident, his sister was missing and upon further inquiry, he
found that petitioner No.2 was also not available at his house.
When the complainant has returned home, he found that some gold
ornaments and cash are missing from the cupboard. He, therefore,
alleged that petitioner No.2 has enticed his sister for entering
into marriage. He also made her to steal gold ornaments and cash
from the house. Section 366 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code are
therefore charged against the petitioners.
I
failed to see how section 366 can be applied in the present case.
Admittedly when petitioner No.1 is aged about 20 years and it is not
even the case of the complainant that she was forcibly taken away,
allegations of kidnapping or abduction cannot be sustained. It is
clear that both the petitioners had willingly left their house to
unite out of their love affair. It was apparently on account of the
step taken by the sister of the complainant and realizing that
allegations of kidnapping and abduction would not be sustained,
complainant has brought into the angle of theft. Counsel for the
petitioners pointed out that no recovery could be made by the police
pursuant to the said allegations. It is abundantly clear that
allegations in the complaint are totally false and so improbable as
to call for exercise of powers of quashing.
In
the result, the petition is allowed. Complaint at Annexure D is
quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top