ORAL ORDER

1. By invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant – Patel Dhruv Prahladbhai seeks quashing of the search warrant proceedings allegedly instituted by the second respondent, who happened to be a father-in-

law of the applicant.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Kirit Chaudhari and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent State.

3. The brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the daughter of the second respondent and the applicant were in love and they got married against the wishes of the parents. The daughter of the second respondent had voluntarily left the house. They entered into marriage relationship on 13.12.2021 and since then, they are residing together as husband and wife. The second respondent is influential person and by any means he wants custody of his daughter. Due to threat perception of their life and liberty, the applicant and his wife moved an application for protection from any threat or any physical assault at the hands of second respondent and other family members. Thereafter, the second respondent being a father of wife, filed an application under Section 97 before the learned CJM, Mehsana for issuance of search warrant, as according to him, the daughter has been illegally confined by the applicant – husband and others. The said application being registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 608 of 2022. The trial Court issued notice in the matter. Being aggrieved with the registration of the said application and upon service of the notice, the applicant herein has preferred the present application, inter-alia, stating that, the search proceedings is illegal, as his wife who happened to be the daughter of second respondent, cannot be said to be in wrongful confinement and therefore, the issuance of notice is without application of mind and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Though the notice was served to the respondent no.

2, who has instituted the search proceedings, which is the subject matter of the petition, has chosen not to appear in the matter.

5. Having considering the contentions raised by learned counsel Mr. Chaudhari and State Counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings of search warrant is not tenable in the facts of present case. Section 97 comes into operation, when a person is under wrongful confinement. In the facts of the present case, on 13.12.2021, the present applicant and daughter of second respondent got married. On 18.07.2022, the couple had sought police protection and same was in the knowledge of second respondent. The search proceedings is being initiated on 25.07.2022. Despite, the knowledge of second respondent about the marriage of her daughter with the applicant, he did not disclose the said facts while filing the application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, therefore, by suppressing material facts, the questioned application is filed with ulterior motive and same is nothing but misuse of process by the second respondent.

6. For the reasons recorded, present application is allowed. The search proceeding being Cr.M.A. No. 608 of 2022 pending before the learned CMJ, Mehsana deserves to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. Direct service is permitted.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

P.S. JOSHI