IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10197/2011 BETWEEN: Jubiulla Ratimani, S/o. Fakrusab Age: 27 Yrs, 0cc: Driver R/o. Gundagatti, Hirekerur Haven District Now Residing at Near KCC Bank Rasulpur, Dharwad PETITIONER (By Sri. R. M. Javed, Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka Through Hirekerur P.S Rep. by SPP, HCCB, Dharwad. RESPONDENT (By Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.141/2010 OF HIREKERUR POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC, HIREKERUR. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the petitioner’s Counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for State in respect of the petition filed seeking quashing of the complaint in Crime No.141/2010 registered by the Hirekerur Police. 2. Submission of the petitioner’s Counsel is that, the complaint was lodged by the father of Souwmya, alleging that the petitioner had kidnapped the girl and therefore, action was sought to be taken against the petitioner alleging the offences punishable under Section 363 read with Section 109 of the IPC. 3. The petitioner’s Counsel further submit that, though the complaint is lodged by the father of the girl, the fact that the petitioner had married the complainant’s daughter through registered marriage and the date of birth of the petitioner and the girl in question also indicate that both of them are above the age of 18 years and the girl has also given a statement to the S.P. Haven stating that she married to petitioner as she was loving him. Therefore, the FIR be quashed. 4. On the other hand, submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that, the petitioner can take all these grounds before the trial Court and moreover, the age of the girl has to be ascertained and also the fact that the complaint allegations are that the petitioner had kidnapped the girl in question is to be proved before the trial Court. 5. Having thus heard both sides, taking note of the nature of the offences alleged and notwithstanding the petitioner’s Counsel submitting that the age of the girl is above 18 years in the light of the evidence, so also the statement of the girl which is enclosed to this petition on her request to be taken away by the trial — 4 Court and the petitioner can urge all the contentions now put forward before the trial Court seeking for discharge. 6. In the light of above reasons, the petitioner is directed to seek appropriate relief before the trial Court and this petition, therefore is rejected. The petitioner is also at liberty to make a request to the trial Court for providing him necessary security in the light of the submission made by the petitioner’s Counsel that the direction is required to be given to S.P., Haven to give protection to the petitioner and the girl in question. JUDGE gab/