IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2008 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Mehtab Ali & others ……. Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Respondents Dated: December 22, 2011 Sri S.M.S. Mehta, Adv. i/b Sri L. Dobhal, Adv. for the petitioners Sri Shivanand Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By way of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of criminal case no.M-104/2006, State Vs. Mehtab Ali & others, u/s 366, 504 and 506 r/w Section 120-B IPC, pending in the court of Additional CJM, Dehradun. The said case was based upon a chargesheet no.98 of 2006 pertaining to crime no.75/2006 against all the applicants, namely, Mehtab Ali, Salilm, Smt. Khatoon and one other accused namely Hashim. The FIR was lodged on 10.4.2006 in P.S. Patel Nagar against the petitioners with the allegations that Gayatri, D/o Smt. Gomti (informant) has been enticed away by petitioner Mehtab Ali. When the informant approached the parents of Mehtab, who are petitioner nos.2 and 3 here, they ensured the return of Gayatri within 6-7 days, but in vain. On 3.4.2006, informant again approached the applicant nos.2 and 3 for the same purpose but she was maltreated by them and was also intimidated with hurling of the abuses. They also informed the informant that Gayatri is going to wed with Mehtab. 2 The police ended the investigation into the submission of the chargesheet, as above, whereupon the trial began. This Court has never granted any stay, hampering the court below to proceed with the trial. So, in all probabilities, the trial would have been concluded by now. Even the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is unaware about the status of the trial. However, on the merits of the petition, he relied upon a precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in AIR 2006 S.C. 2522” wherein it was held that if the girl (major) has made a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she is married, irrespective of the inter-caste marriage, the boy (major) cannot be prosecuted for the offence of Sections 366/368 IPC. The precedent relied upon by learned counsel is at all not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, inasmuch as, there is no statement before the Court where Gayatri has expressed her own will to marry with Mehtab. Mere fact that out of the physical relations developed between Gayatri and Mehtab, a baby was born on 15.2.2007 in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi whose birth was got registered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, does not necessarily mean that Gayatri, with her free will, married with Mehtab Ali. That apart, these all are the facts which cannot be ascertained by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. All these facts can only be adjudicated in the trial court. For the reasons as aforesaid, the petition is totally devoid of merits, which is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) December 22, 2011 Rajeev Dang