IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the parameters for quashing of an FIR as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and the legal principles for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC as established in the cases of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. and Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

ORDER :

RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application, the applicant has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR registered against the applicant accused being CR.No. I-0041 of 2014 registered before Limbdi Police Station, Dist: Surendranagar, for the offences under Section 366, 506 and 507 of the IPC.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the applicant- Shashikantbhai Haribhai Babhanva shall hereinafter be referred to as applicant-accused and respondent no.2- Ms.Dakshaben daughter of Rashiklal Waghela shall hereinafter referred to as the original-complainant. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall hereinafter be referred as “Code” whereas, Indian Penal Code, 1860, be referred as “IPC” for short.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the the so-called incident occurred on 08.10.2013, and the FIR got registered on 02.04.2014, therefore there is a gross delay of more than six months to register the FIR and the complainant failed to assign any reasons in worth of explanations at the time of registering the FIR.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that so far as allegations levelled against the present applicant-accused is concerned, the applicant had abducted and kidnapped the victim from the lawful custody of the guardian of the girl. Admittedly, at the time of incident, the age of the victim is 19 years and she was major. It is alleged in the complaint itself that on the fateful day of the incident, the complainant was called at a particular place and from there she was abducted and kidnapped by the applicant-accused on a motor bike and took her to a far distant place and at that point of time, cloth was fixed in the mouth of the complainant. Immediately after reaching at that particular place she was directed to make signature on certain papers and produced before the concerned government authorities. At that time, the complainant has not raised her voice as it is alleged that threat was administered upon her.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel, submits that infact the applicant-accused and the original-complainant were neighbours and they got attracted towards each other which ultimately culminated into relationship and they developed love towards each other. The said fact has come to the notice of the family members of the original-complainant and they were against the said relationship and they tried to separate them from the relationship but, could not get success in their attempts. The applicant and the respondent both were major at that relevant point of time and decided to convert the said relationship into marriage and therefore they have decided to elope with each other and registered their marriage. The applicant-accused and original-complainant had solemnised their marriage as per Hindu rights and rituals and thereafter their marriage was registered before the Sub Registrars of Marriages office.

5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that as per the case of the prosecution the so called incident occurred on 08.10.2013, whereas marriage solemnized and registered on 09.10.2013 which clearly goes to show the gravity of the defence raised by the applicant. The marriage certificate along with photograph is produced at ‘Annexure-C’. The said documents clearly show that the marriage was solemnized on 09.10.2013.

5.4 Learned Advocate Mr.Patel, further submits that even after applicant and respondent were legally wedded husband and wife and they stayed together for more than four months and during that period, harassment continued on the part of the family members and relatives of the original-complainant. Therefore original-complainant constrained to register the complaint against her family members by way of preferring an application in the form of a complaint before the police officer