1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report being C.R. No. I20 of 2013 registered with the Dholka Police Station, dated 1st February, 2013, of the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:

(a) The respondent no.2 is a resident of Dholka, District Ahmedabad. He is earning his livelihood by plying an autorickshaw. He has one son, namely, Sohil, aged 19 years and two daughters, namely, Reshambanu, aged 17 years and Sabnam, aged 10 years respectively.

(b) On 1st February, 2013, the respondent no.2 lodged the First Information Report stating that in the morning he had left his house to ply the rickshaw, and in the afternoon, when he returned home, his wife informed him that Reshambanu had gone away somewhere since 11.00 O'clock in the morning. Thereafter, the first informant started searching for his daughter Reshambanu at the house of his relatives and friends. Despite frantic efforts, Reshambanu could not be traced. In such circumstances, the first informant suspected that the applicant herein probably might have enticed Reshambanu and she might have ran away with the applicant herein. The wife of the first informant, therefore, went at the house of the applicant and inquired with the parents of the applicant and the parents of the applicant, in turn, informed the wife of the first informant that their son i.e. the applicant herein was also not to be seen at the house since morning. The parents of the applicant informed the wife of the first informant that they were trying to contact the applicant on his mobile but the mobile had been switched of. In such circumstances, the first informant and his wife reached to a conclusion that their daughter Reshambanu had been perhaps kidnapped by the applicant herein. The first informant, as the father of Reshambanu, thereafter thought fit to inform the Police about the same and the Police recorded the First Information Report.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the first informant herein i.e. the father of Reshambanu also thought fit to file a habeas corpus petition being Special Criminal Application No. 910 of 2013.

4. The habeas corpus petition was not entertained by a Division Bench of this Court since the petitioner, as the father of the girl, had already lodged a report before the Dholka Police Station. The Division Bench observed that the Police would take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law.

5. The picture that emerges from the materials on record is that the applicant herein and Reshambanu both fell in love with each other as both were residing in the same locality. They both decided to get married and, accordingly, went to Ajmer Sharif, where Nikah was performed by the Kajisaheb of the Ajmer Sharif on 2nd February, 2013. A certificate to that effect has been produced at Annexure 'A'. At the time when Nikah was performed, the age of Reshambanu was 17 years and odd.

6. Mr. Vijay Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently submitted that even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of kidnapping are spelt out. Mr. Patel submits that it is not in dispute that when Reshambanu left her parental home along with applicant she was aged around 17 years and few months. Mr. Patel submits that the parties belong to the Muslim community. They are governed by their personal law i.e. the Mohammedan Law. He submits that a muslim girl, who is above 15 years of age or has attained puberty, is at liberty to marry even if there is no consent from the parents. Mr. Patel has placed reliance on some of the provisions of the Mohammedan Law. Mr. Patel further submits that even if it is assumed for