Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10010/2009 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10010 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
HASANALI
ABDREMAN @ KALIO KHATKI & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioners are the original accused. They seek quashing of complaint
Annexure-A. Complaint has been filed by father of one Reshma.
Allegations in the complaint is that Reshma was abducted forcibly by
accused on 11.7.2009. The petitioner however, contend that between
petitioner no.1 and daughter of the complainant i.e. Reshma, there
was an affair since many years. Girl’s parents were however, not in
favour of the relationship. A false complaint was therefore, filed
when Reshma against the wish of her parents left her house and joined
petitioner no.1. It is stated that the two have got married on
29.7.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 as well as Reshma were
well over 18 years of age when the incident took place. They are born
in the year 1981 and 1983 respectively. Reshma’s affidavit is also
filed on record stating inter-alia that she has voluntarily joined
petitioner No.1.
From
the above materials, it is clear that a false complaint of abduction
came to be filed simply because the complainant was not happy about
his daughter’s relation with petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 as well
as Reshma being matured adults, there is no question of kidnapping or
even abduction. Complaint is apparently filed to pressurize the
petitioners. Permitting the said complaint to be investigated would
amount to abuse of process of law. Same is therefore, quashed.
Petition
is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top