Gujarat High Court
Thakor Ravindra Gopalji @ Fulaji vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 24529 of 2016
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
=======================================================
THAKOR RAVINDRA GOPALJI @ FULAJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MB PARIKH(576) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESH DESAI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 27/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, the 'Code'), the applicant prays for
quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-
39/2016 registered with Bavlu Police Station for
the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. M.B. Parikh for the
applicant, learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for
respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Mr. Shailesh
Desai for respondent no.2, who is permitted to
file his Vakalatnama in the Registry. I have also
heard the respondent no.2 - complainant, who is
present before this Court. Learned advocate, Mr.
Shailesh Desai has identified respondent no.2 and
confirms correctness and genuineness of the
affidavit filed by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
3. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have
submitted that now the dispute is amicably settled
between the parties and, therefore, the respondent
no.2 has filed an affidavit before this Court,
copy of which is placed on record. Upon making
inquiry, the respondent no.2, who is present
before this Court, has stated that he has settled
the dispute with the present applicant and,
therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed, he has
no objection. It is also stated by the complainant
that the applicant and his daughter, Sweta married
and are happily leaving their live and he has
accepted the applicant as his son-in-law and he
has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed
and set aside.
4. In view of the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties, it is found out that
the impugned FIR has been lodged alleging inter
alia about the abduction of minor daughter of the
complainant. However, it is an admitted position
of fact, which can be found out from the above
facts, because of the love affair, the minor
daughter of the complainant fled away with the
applicant and now both have married and residing
together happily and the complainant has also
accepted the applicant as his son-in-law. Over and
above that, out of said wedlock, the applicant and
the daughter of the complainant is having baby
body viz., Jiyansh. Not only that, the complainant
has also filed an affidavit before this Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
on perusal of said affidavit, it is found out that
the complainant has stated that relation between
the complainant and his daughter and son-in-law
(i.e. the present applicant) is very cordial and
the complainant and his family have accepted the
applicant as son-in-law and because of above
facts, they do not want to pursue with the
proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
5. Considering the above stated factual aspect, even
if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken
at its face value, it cannot be said that the
daughter of the complainant was abducted by the
present applicant from lawful custody of the first
informant i.e. her parents, therefore, the
impugned FIR does not disclose any prima
facie offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the
IPC.
6. 10. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to refer to the ratio laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Sangita Rani (Smt)
alias Mehnazjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 715,
wherein it has been held as under:
"That, in a situation where both
the spouse are major, and there has been a
valid marriage in accordance with
law, and both of them are living together,
the marriage should be sustained and nothing
should be allowed to happen which would
affect that position. The Supreme Court had,
in the facts of the said case,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
cautioned the parents to accept the
situation and create no problem for the
petitioner and her husband. It was
observed that, ordinarily, the Court does not
interfere at investigation stage in a
criminal matter, but in the special facts
indicated therein, it would be necessary to
quash the pending investigation initiated
by the father of the petitioner".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata
Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 5 SCC
475 observed as under :-
"17. The caste system is a curse on the
nation and the sooner it is destroyed the
better. In fact, it is dividing the nation
at a time when we have to be united to
face the challenges before the nation
unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in
fact in the national interest as they will
result in destroying the caste system.
However, disturbing news are coming from
several parts of the country that young men
and women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
are threatened with violence, or violence is
actually committed on them. In our opinion,
such acts of violence or threats or
harassment are wholly illegal and those who
commit them must be severally punished. This
is a free and democratic country, and once a
person becomes a major he or she can marry
whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
boy or girl do not approve of
such inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage the maximum they can do is that
they can cut off social relations with the
son or the daughter, but they cannot give
threats or commit or instigate acts of
violence and cannot harass the person
who undergoes such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage. We, therefore,
direct that the administration / police
authorities throughout the country will see
to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage with a woman or man who is a
major, the couple are not harassed by any one
nor subjected to threats or acts of violence,
and any one who gives such treats or harasses
or commits acts of violence either himself or
at his instigation, is taken to task by
instituting criminal proceedings by the
police against such persons and further stern
action is taken against such persons as
provided by law."
8. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court have held that inherent powers
could be exercised by the High Court to give
effect to an order under Cr.P.C.; to prevent of
abuse of process of Court; and to otherwise secure
ends of justice. Thus, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of present case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that there is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
minimal chances of witnesses coming forward in
support of the prosecution and chances of
conviction appears to be remote and/or bleak. In
such circumstances, it would be unnecessary
harassment and futile attempt if the prosecution
is allowed to continue.
9. I have also considered the the principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR
1992 SC 604. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said
judgment in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) has issued
certain guidelines, which are required to be taken
into consideration at the time of deciding
quashing petition. The relevant para reads as
under:
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Ch.XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which we have extracted
and reproduced above, the following
categories of cases are given by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or 'complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act,
(7) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge."
10. This Court would also like to place reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, reported in
(1965) 1 SCR 243, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has expressed in detail as to what amounts to
taking away and enticing the minor and as to when
a young girl choses to leave the parental home on
condition of her own volition with no element of
any enticement or taking away, the provision of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24529/2016 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
Section 363 of the IPC would not be attracted.
11. Thus in view of the broad decisions and guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
decision, which have been followed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in subsequent decisions as well as
by this Court from time to time and since now the
dispute with reference to the impugned FIR is
settled and resolved by and between parties, which
is confirmed by the original complainant through
his learned advocate as stated above, the
continuation of proceedings would be futile
exercise and any further continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of
law. It is true that at the time of commission of
crime, the daughter of the complainant was minor,
however on attaining the majority, she married
with the applicant and now residing with him and
they are having one minor body out of said
wedlock. Thus considering the above facts of the
case, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed
and set aside.
12. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The
impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-39/2016 registered
with Bavlu Police Station and all other
consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR
are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
