ORDER :

1. Heard Advocate Mr. Darsil Kamdar for Mr. Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP for the respondent State.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-127 of 2015 registered before the Gondal Taluka Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot for offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 114 of IPC.

3. Advocate Mr. Darsil Kamdar for Mr. Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant stated that the birth date of complainant’s daughter was shown as 01.07.1998 and complaint is to the effect that the complainant’s daughter had eloped with the present applicant and other two persons had supported them. Mr. Kamdar submitted that at present the daughter of the complainant and applicant are residing together as a married couple and the complainant’s daughter has filed an affidavit to the effect that she has married the present applicant and their marriage has been registered on 07.07.2016 vide Registration No.940 of 2016; and she has stated that she is happily leaving with her husband on her own volition without any undue pressure and influence, and she had left her parental home on her own wish to marry the present applicant and thus she has urged to quash and set aside the FIR and to terminate the further proceedings.

3.1 Mr. Kamdar further stated that other two accused were acquitted on 01.04.2021 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2016, and as observed by the learned Judge, according to the victim’s statement, she was above 18 years of age at the time of the FIR and had gone with the present applicant on her own will and consent, and out of the wedlock they are having two children and the birth certificate of both the children are produced at Exhibit-46 and 47. She has specifically stated in her deposition that her husband had not kidnapped her and the mother of the victim girl also supported the prosecution case stating that daughter is living as wife with the present applicant.

4. Learned APP submitted that even if the co-accused have been acquitted in the trial, the main allegation of the complainant is against the present applicant, who had abducted the minor victim girl from the guardianship of the parents, and thus stated that the trial is required to be proceeded against the present applicant and urged to reject the application.

5. The victim is wife of the present applicant and as per her deposition in Sessions Case No.22 of 2016, she was major at the time of alleged offence and she on her own volition has left the parental house to join the present applicant and the trial Court Judge has also not found any offence against the co-accused. The evidence as was recorded during the trial also suggests that there is no any criminal act on the part of the applicant, rather as per deposition of the victim girl, who is at present wife of the present applicant, has married her and out of the matrimonial life, they are having two children.

6. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:-

“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 channelis