20. cr wp 2453-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2453 OF 2010 Satyanarayan Pathak & Ors .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents Ms. Nilofar Saiyed for the Petitioners Ms. Anjali Awasthi i/b Mr. Momin Khan for Respondent No. 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused nos. 1 to 4, learned advocate for respondent no. 2- original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of MECR No. 1 of 2010 registered against them by Kurla police station on 2nd April 2010 for the offence under Sections 364, 365, 452, 498 read with 34 of IPC. The said case is numbered as CC No. 1/SW/2010 and is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The complainant is the son-in-law of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 1 20. cr wp 2453-10.doc 3. A private complaint came to be lodged by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate issued direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Kurla Police Station to investigate the matter, hence MECR came to be registered. The case of respondent no. 2 is that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of Neelam. Petitioner no. 3 is the brother of Neelam and petitioner no. 4 is the brother-in- law of Neelam i.e husband of sister of Neelam. It was initially agreed by the petitioners that they would solemnize the marriage of Neelam with respondent no. 2 and formal engagement ceremony took place. Thereafter, the parents of Neelam broke off the engagement. However, respondent no. 2 and Neelam got married on 3rd December 2008 at Arya Samaj in U.P. according to Hindu Vedic rights and the marriage has been registered on 4th December 2008. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 along with Neelam came to Mumbai and resided there. On 18th December 2008, another marriage ceremony took place between Neelam and respondent no. 2. Thereafter, Neelam and respondent no. 2 were residing in Mumbai. 4. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that on 11th February 2009, all the petitioners along with unknown persons forcibly came into the premises of respondent no. 2 and they took away his wife Neelam. On coming to know about the incident, he immediately rushed to the police station. 2 20. cr wp 2453-10.doc However, the police did not register the FIR and only NC came to be registered by the police on 11th February 2009. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged by him before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As stated earlier, the learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the said case. 5. Admittedly, birth date of Neelam is 18th June 1986 which is seen from the certificate produced by respondent no. 2. The incident has occurred on 11th February 2009. Thus, at the time of the incident, Neelam was over 22 years of age. The statement of Neelam has been recorded by the police wherein she has stated that she met respondent no. 2 in the market. They had tea together. There was some intoxicating substance in the tea, hence she lost consciousness. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 took her to some temple and forcibly got married to her. She has specifically stated that said marriage was against her wishes. Thereafter, she was brought to Mumbai by respondent no. 2. She has stated that some days thereafter, respondent no. 2 told her to bring Rs. two lacs from her parents and left her at the railway station to go to the parents' house, hence Neelam went to the house of her parents. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 threatened her parents to send Rs. two lacs or there would be 3 20. cr wp 2453-10.doc danger to the life of Neelam. 6. I have also interviewed Neelam. She has stated that she does not wish to go back to the house of respondent no. 2. She has further stated that on account of the act of the respondent, she left the house of respondent no. 2 and went to the house of her parents of her own accord and none of the petitioners have anything to do with her act of going from Mumbai to Mathura. She has stated that respondent no. 2 has filed a false complaint against her parents and others with a view to pressurize her to return to him. However, she does not in any event want to go back to the petitioner. In view of the statement of Neelam, case is made out for quashing of MECR. 7. M.E.C.R. No. 1 of 2010 of Kurla Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C. No. 1/SW/2010 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai is quashed. 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 20. cr wp 2453-10.doc 5