Gujarat High Court
Patel Kartikkumar (Kalu) Nitinbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14975 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO.
1 of 2016
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14975 of 2013
==========================================================
PATEL KARTIKKUMAR (KALU) NITINBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DHAVAL N VAKIL(3556) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Perused the office note. Learned advocate for the
petitioners seeks permission to reconstruct the papers of
Crimi Misc. Application No.14975 of 2013. Permission
granted. The petitioners are permitted to reconstruct the
papers of Criminal Misc. Application No.14975 of 2013. In
case the original papers are found, learned advocate for the
petitioners is directed to place the original papers on record
of the present matter.
1. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, the victim, who was just under 18 years of age at the
relevant time, is stated to have voluntarily eloped with the
petitioner No.1 and subsequently entered into marriage upon
attaining majority. The couple is now blessed with a son.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
Learned advocate for the petitioners is permitted to place on
record birth certificate of the son with the Registry. Registry
to accept the same.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the
offences under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") are not attracted in
the present case, considering the consensual nature of the
relationship and subsequent developments.
3. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the
petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. &
Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, and submitted that
in an identical factual scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to record a
settlement in such offences, it would nevertheless be
appropriate for the High Court to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings in the interest of justice.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted
that in the present case, the victim was 17 years and 11
months old on the date of the alleged incident. A copy of the
marriage certificate has been placed on record, and the
affidavit of the victim affirms that she married the petitioner
No.1 after attaining the age of majority. This, according to
learned counsel, clearly indicates that there is no justification
for subjecting the petitioners to face the rigours of trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
5. Under instructions, learned advocate for the petitioners
also submitted that the couple are now blessed with a child.
He further stated that the couple is leading a harmonious and
stable married life. In light of these developments, it is
submitted that the present petition may be allowed in the
interest of justice.
6. Learned advocate for the the complainant strongly
objected to grant of relief on the ground that the victim was
minor at the time of the incident and she has been abducted
for the purpose of marriage. He would further submit that
since the victim was less than marriageable age, her consent
was immaterial. Upon such submission, he requests to
dismiss the petition.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, adopting the
argument of learned advocate for the complainant, prays to
dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and
upon perusal of the material on record, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the
third respondent in which she has accepted the fact
that she is happily married to the appellant and they
have been residing together. She has disclosed her
date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the
Primary School, as can be seen from document at
Annexure 'P-1', the date of birth of the third
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification
test was conducted during the investigation. The
report of the test is that on the date of commission of
the offence, the age of the third respondent may be
between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents
on record to show that the date of birth of the third
respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the
offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016
she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are
happily married, no purpose will be served by
continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue
harassment to the appellant, the third respondent
and their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the
marriage certificate was placed on record before the
High Court. In fact, no objection by the first
informant is also recorded in the impugned order.
Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining
the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement,
has observed that the application for dropping
criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may
be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court
completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court
could not have recorded the settlement and in fact,
this was a fit case for the High Court to have
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the
parties have been forced to come to this Court."
9. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are
identical to those of the present case. In the matter before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the victim was 17 years of age, and a
marriage certificate issued by the competent authority
reflected that subsequent to the alleged incident, the victim
had entered into matrimony with the accused. The victim had
also filed an affidavit affirming that she was happily married.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
10. Learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the
attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the victim. Said
affidavit is taken on record. In the said affidavit, the victim
has stated on oath as per her wish and will, she had left her
parental house without taking anything and marry with the
petitioners and that there is no pressure of any person on her
to do so and even she is filing this Affidavit after
understanding everything. Even after marriage she is residing
with her husband i.e. the petitioners happily at her husband's
house. Thus, she requests this Hon'ble High Court to quash
the impugned complaint so that they can live happily."
11. In view of the foregoing, since the victim is now living a
happy and settled matrimonial life of her own volition, having
attained the age of majority, subjecting the petitioners to the
rigours of trial at this stage would amount to unwarranted
harassment and abuse of the process of law.
12. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is
hereby ALLOWED. The FIR being C.R. No. I-121 of 2023
registered with Vijapur Police Station along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein.
13. Consequently, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2016
does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
