Ashish @ Kalu Babubhai Ghelani ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 3567 Guj

     R/CR.MA/4104/2014                                JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4104 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

==========================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                    No
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             No

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                   No
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question                   No
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                   ASHISH @ KALU BABUBHAI GHELANI PATEL
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. J.K.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                               Date : 28/04/2023

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Application has been preferred by the Applicant / Original Accused under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the FIR being I-CR No. 43 of 2012

R/CR.MA/4104/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023

registered with Gondal City Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik B. Barot for the Applicant. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged by one Rekhaben, wife of Dineshbhai Haribhai Chavda, who happens to be the mother of the victim namely Rupal @ Hiral.

2.1 It is alleged in the FIR that on 16.4.2012 when the first informant went to her house after finishing her work, she did not find her daughter Rupal aged 16 years in the house, and therefore, she tried to contact the present Applicant on his mobile phone, which was switched of. Since the Applicant had earlier also abducted the daughter of the first informant, she suspected that, on that day also, the victim was abducted by the present Applicant, and that is how, the FIR has been lodged.

2.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that the date of birth of the victim Rupal was 20.11.1996. After she attained the marriageable age, the first informant and the victim Rupal got married to each other on 22.1.2014 and a daughter named Anjana was born out of the said wedlock on 30.9.2015. Thereafter a divorce has taken place between the victim and the present Applicant on 26.6.2020, and after the divorce, the victim has remarried. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 363 and 366 of IPC are not made out against the Applicant. He also submitted that in view of the fact that after divorce between the Applicant and the victim, the victim has also remarried somewhere else, and therefore, there is no point in continuing with the proceedings of the FIR. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application.

R/CR.MA/4104/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2023

3. The Application is opposed by learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah for the Respondent - State. Learned APP Mr. Shah has submitted that on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was below 18 years, and therefore, the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC are clearly made out against the Applicant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute as regards the fact that on 22.1.2014 the Applicant and the victim got married to each other. On the date of marriage the victim was aged above 18 years. The copy of Marriage Certificate is produced on record. It is also not in dispute that out of the said wedlock, daughter Anjana was born on 30.9.2015. After the birth of the daughter, disputes arose between the Applicant and the victim, and on 26.6.2020, a divorce had taken place between the two. It has been stated at the bar that after the divorce, the victim has remarried elsewhere.

5.1 In view of these circumstances, continuing with the proceedings of FIR in question would amount to nothing but an exercise in futility.

6. Having regard to these facts, the present Application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The FIR being I-CR No. 43 of 2012 registered with Gondal City Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) and all other proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 33