IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 of 2009 DATE:19.08.2010 Between: Arla Uday Kumar …… Petitioner And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-1 is accused of offence punishable under Section 366 and 109 I.P.C along with two others in S.C. No.591 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is father of the alleged victim girl aged 16 years by the date of offence on 11.03.2006. On reading of the entire allegations in the charge sheet and other documents placed before me, it appears to be the prosecution case that in pursuance of plan hatched by A-1 to A-3, A-1 left Hyderabad and went to Vijayawada instructing A-2 to pick up the alleged victim girl and when they reached Vijayawada, all the three of them went to Nellore to A-3 and that all four of them went to Golagamudi village, where marriage of the petitioner with the alleged victim girl was performed in Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple. On report given by the 2nd respondent, the police booked the case and filed charge sheet. 2) The only ground of attack by the prosecution is that the victim girl was minor aged 16 years and that she was taken away by A-1 to A-3 hatching a plan. As the matter now stands, both the petitioner and the alleged victim girl are leading their marital life and they were blessed with a female child Nishitha and it is evident from birth certificate issued by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The facts undoubtedly indicate that it was a love affair between the petitioner and the alleged victim girl Sravanthi and that hatching up plan was made by not only A-1 to A-3 but also Sravanthi to go away from the 2nd respondent and for the marriage between Sravanthi and the petitioner. Since Sravanthi was aged 16 years, she was having age of discretion by then to decide which is good and which is bad for her. This Court is of the opinion that it is a case of Sravanthi voluntarily leaving house of her father to join A-1 and to marry A-1 and that it is not a case of kidnap by A-1. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 cannot go on in the lower Court for the alleged offence of kidnapping. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in S.C. No.591 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 19, 2010 KSH