CR.MA/3821/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3821 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== LALITBHAI @ CHAKUBHAI RAMJIBHAI PAVANIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for the Applicant No.1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 1 MR YV VAGHELA for Respondent No.2 and 3 ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 26/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.MA/3821/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.3 herein had lodged a complaint on 17th March, 2008 which was registered as Rajkot – Malaviyanagar Police Station I C.R. No.89/08 against certain unknown persons alleging commission of the offence punishable under sections 365 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been revealed as an accused in the matter. 4. It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that his niece Urvi had married the respondent No.2, who belongs to some other caste, on 13th March, 2008. That subsequently, a family meeting was called for and the petitioner accepted the marriage between Urvi and respondent No.2. That as the caste meeting was arranged, the petitioner had gone to Rajkot on 17th March, 2008 and the respondent No.2 and Urvi had also gone along with him to the Porbandar at Urvi's residence. It is submitted that on account of some misapprehension, the respondent No.3 had lodged the complaint in question under the impression that the respondent No.2 had forcibly been taken away by some unknown persons. It is submitted that now when the position is clear, the respondent No.2 is no CR.MA/3821/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT longer interested in pursuing the complaint. 5. Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that considering the fact that the complaint has been lodged on a mistaken belief that the respondent No.2 had been kidnapped and that the respondent No.2 himself has filed an affidavit, Annexure C to the petition, wherein he has specifically stated that he had not been abducted and that he had willingly gone with the family members of the petitioner, the complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, learned advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3 has reiterated the aforesaid position. Both the learned advocates for the parties have jointly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint in question is required to be quashed. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and having regard to the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3, the First Information Report in question appears to have been lodged on a mistaken belief that the respondent No.2 had been kidnapped. However, the position is now quite clear as the respondent No.2 himself has stated that he had willingly gone along with the petitioner. Both the respondents No.2 and 3 are present before this Court and have reaffirmed what is stated by the learned advocates for the parties. In the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, the interest of justice would best be served if the first information report in question is quashed. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of powers CR.MA/3821/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and it is accordingly, allowed. The First Information Report being Rajkot – Malaviyanagar Police Station I C.R. No.89/08 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-