Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1890/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1890 of 2010
=========================================================
SITARABEN
MAQBOOLBHAI MIRZA & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MT SAIYAD for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR JK SHAH ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr.J.K.Shah and learned Advocate Mr.Hemant B. Rawal
waived service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents
Nos.1-3 and 4.
Petitioners
Nos.2 and 3 are original accused, in the complaint lodged by the
respondent No.4 bearing C.R.No.I-307 of 2010 registered with the
Vejalpur Police Station. They want that said complaint be quashed on
various grounds. Said complaint has been lodged by the respondent
No.4, who is father of the petitioner No.3. In the complaint, he has
alleged that his daughter committed theft from the house by taking
away certain valuable articles, such as, gold ornaments and cash.
Petitioner No.2 is shown to have abetted such offence.
From
perusal of the documents, however, it clearly emerges that the
daughter of the complainant had married petitioner No.2 who belongs
to another religion. Complainant is, therefore, highly agitated and
unhappy about such inter-religion marriage. Petitioner No.1 had
previously instituted the present petition with sole relief for
recording statement of the girl at residence instead of calling her
at Police Station. She had voiced grievance that the girl would be
ill-treated.
On
28.09.2010 when the petitioners were present before the Court, it was
pointed out to him that relatives of the girl were also present and
they were creating troubles and may even abduct the girl. I had
requested the learned APP to provide full police protection and to
ensure that they are safely transported to their residence. Following
portion of the order dated 28.09.2010 needs to be reproduced.
Counsel
for the petitioners further stated that the relatives of the girl are
present in the court and are likely to create trouble and may even
abduct the girl. Whereupon, I had requested the learned APP to
secure presence of the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police
Station. PI, Mr.Malek is present before the Court. He is directed to
provide police protection to the petitioners and to ensure that they
are transported safely from the High Court to their residence or any
suitable place that they may indicate. Danilimda Police Station
where the petitioners are residing shall also make suitable
arrangements for the safety of the petitioners. For this purpose,
if they make an application, the same shall be considered.
From
the above developments and from the averments made in the petition
and the documents annexed along with the petition, so also, the
allegations contained in the impugned complaint, unfailingly it
emerges that the complainant – father of the girl – petitioner No.2
is extremely perturbed and highly agitated on account of her marriage
with the person belongs to different religion and that too against
wish of the father. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 is
a major aged about 24 years. Her birth-certificate is produced on
record. Under the circumstances, she had free choice to enter into a
contract of marriage with any other person who is of marriageable
age. Even the father could not objected to her action of her
daughter. Obviously, because the father could not lodge a complaint
of kidnapping and abduction since the girl was major and voluntarily
left the house at own volition, father found a different, if not so a
novel method to involve police agency in trying to bring back custody
of the girl, he filed present complaint making wild allegations
against his daughter – petitioner No.3 of having stolen the valuable
property to join with her prospective husband who is also alleged to
have abetted commission of such offence. In
the complaint itself, there is absolutely no indication as to how the
petitioner No.2 has abetted commission of such offence except for
bare statement that he being friend instigated her to do so, there is
no other allegation. One more
indication to demonstrate that the father was out to involved not
only his daughter but her friend for some vague and baseless
allegations to ensure that police machinery is utilized to arrest
them and some how bring back custody of the girl which is legally can
not be claimed before any Court of law or authority.
Looking
from this angle, it becomes clear that allegations in the complaint
are inherently improbable made only with a view to somehow nab his
daughter and her friend by using police machinery. With the
assistance of learned APP for the State, I have also perused the
papers of investigating agency who within time available with them
has not been able to gather any slightest evidence to suggest that
allegations are relevant and believable. Under the circumstances,
permitting further investigation and trial into such accusation would
amount to misuse of State machinery and abuse of process of Court.
Such abuse can not be permitted.
In
the result, the petition succeeds. Complaint
lodged by the respondent No.4 bearing C.R.No.I-307 of 2010 registered
with the Vejalpur Police Station is, therefore, quashed.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top