1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6982 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No. 2 of 2011 1.Muthuraj 2.Sakkaiah 3.Kumar ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs. 1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothkudi District. 2.Nagarathinam ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.395 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police, dated 17.04.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan For R - 1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This application is filed to call for the records relating to the F.I.R. in Crime No.395 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police, dated 17.04.2011 and quash the same. 2. The petitioners were arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.395 of 2011 for having committed the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner and the victim girl were lovers and the victim girl, who is a major, on her own accord went with the first petitioner and both of them got married and they are living together and an H.C.P was filed by one Balamurugan, who is the uncle of the first petitioner, which was also disposed of by this Court after the victim girl Rajeswari was produced by the first petitioner and she has also stated before the Division Bench that she has married the first petitioner and living with him and she refused to go with her parents. 4. As the victim girl Rajeswari had gone with the first petitioner on her own accord and there was no compulsion by the petitioners to marry the first petitioner, in my opinion, no case has been made out for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. Further the victim girl Rajeswari has also appeared before this Court and on enquiry, she has also stated that she is a major and the petitioners have not compelled her nor kidnapped and she went along with the first petitioner and married him. She also filed an affidavit to that effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and he also submitted that during the proceedings in H.C.P.No.315 of 2011, the victim girl was produced and she has stated that she went on her own accord and in view of her statement, the H.C.P. was closed. 6. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion, no case has been made against the petitioners and the F.I.R. in Crime No.395 of 2011 is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No.395 of 2011 is liable to be quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothkudi District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. Vsm SR : 14.07.2011 : 2p/3c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6982 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 28.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/