1. Rule. Mr. K.L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waived the service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 the original first informant although served with the notice issued by this Court dated 23.06.2015 yet has chosen not to appear before this Court and oppose this application either in person or through an advocate.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant the original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.I38 of 2014 registered with the Gayakwad Haveli Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.') and also for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'the POCSO Act').

3. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarized as under:

3.1 The respondent No.2 is a resident of Ahmedabad. He has two daughters, namely, Namira aged 16 years and 4 months, and Tahejib aged 10 years. At the time when the First Information Report was lodged, the elder daughter of the first informant, namely, Namira was studying in standard 11th. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that his daughter Namira was in love with the applicant herein. It is further stated that the family members used to persuade Namira to discontinue the relations with the applicant accused. It is further stated that friends and relatives had also tried to persuade Namira not to keep any relations with the applicant accused. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 17.04.2015 in the night hours, the applicant accused enticed the daughter of the first informant, namely, Namira and kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of the first informant. It is alleged that on the date of the lodging of the F.I.R., Namira was a minor.

4. The applicant accused has come up with this application, praying for quashing of the F.I.R., mainly on the following grounds:

(1) The first informant, as father of Namira, has admitted in so many words in the First Information Report that his daughter was in love with the applicant accused.

(2) The first informant has also declared the age of his daughter as 16 years and 4 months on the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(3) According to the applicant accused, Namira had left her parental home on her own free will and volition and decided to get married with the applicant accused. Accordingly, the Nikah was performed, and as on today, the applicant accused and Namira are residing together as lawful wedded husband and wife.

(4) The applicant accused and Namira are governed by their Personal Law i.e. the Mohammedan Law. 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.

(5) Article 251 of the Mohammedan Law deals with the capacity for marriage.

(6) Article 348 deals with the age of majority.

(7) According to the applicant accused, no offence could be said to have been committed in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mujamil Abdulsattar Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19811 of 2013 decided on 01.12.2014).

(8) Mr. Soeb R. Bhoharia, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant accused 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.

(9) He submitted relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Mujamil (supra) that the continuation of the investigation by the police would be nothing, but an abuse of the process of law.

5. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State of Gujarat. He pointed out t