{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3030 OF 2009 Saiyed Najer s/o Saiyed Sandhu Age-27 years, Occ-Business R/o Limbe Jalgaon, Tq-Gangapur Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer Waluj Police Station, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad 2. Shaikh Mahemood Sahikh Ameer Age-42 years, Occ-Agri. R/o Turkabad, Tq-Gangapur Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for the applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24 th November 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to quash the FIR registered at CR No.40/2009 with Waluj Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 363 and 366-B r/w 34 of the {2} Indian Penal Code. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. None appears on behalf of respondent No.2, though served. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation made available by the APP for my perusal. 4. The contents of the complaint dated 12.07.2009 disclose that this complaint is lodged by respondent No.2, who is father of the prosecutrix, Rizwana, alleging that his daughter Rizwana is 17 years old and in the night of 10 th April 2009 she is abducted by the applicant. It is alleged in the compliant that as he did not find his daughter at the residence, he started searching for her and at that time it is informed by his brother that he saw that Rizwana was going on a motor bike with the applicant towards Limbe Jalgaon. After receiving this information, the complainant along with his brother and other relatives went to Limbe Jalgaon, however he was unable to find his daughter. Thereafter, it is alleged that he received a phone call from Rizwana informing him that she is with the applicant and will be back in the evening. Thereafter, the compliant came to be lodged. It is alleged that Rizwana had taken cash of Rs.61,000/- from the sale proceeds of cotton, which was handed over to her by the complainant. {3} 5. During the course of submissions, it is urged that Rizwana, daughter of the complainant, is major, secondly, she had filed an affidavit before the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 7 th May 2009 stating that she is major and at her own she has left her parents’ house along with the applicant and thereafter they got married at Surat as per Muslim rites and customs and that she had not taken any cash as alleged. She has stated that as her family members are opposing her love marriage, a false case is lodged against the applicant. 6. Learned APP has contended that though the bona fide certificate collected during the investigation shows the birth date of Rizwana as 02.04.1990, yet the radiological test does not support the said certificate and as per the radiological test the age of Rizwana is about 17 years and some months. Learned APP has contended that the correct age of Rizwana can be decided at the time of trial. 7. Considering the submissions advanced across the bar and after perusing the papers of investigation it is clear that statement of Rizwana came to be recorded by the Investigating Officer. The said statement discloses that Rizwana had love affair with the applicant since long prior to the date of incident. They used to meet at the residence of the matrimonial aunt of Rizwana. On the fateful date i.e. on 10.04.2009, as per the statement of Rizwana, she had invited / called the applicant in the field situated {4} behind her house and they have already planned to elope with each other. According to Rizwana, as per the planning, the applicant came there and she accompanied him from where first they went to Dhule and thereafter they went to Surat where they got married. According to Rizwana, she is major and 19 years old. 8. All these facts clearly indicate that at the time of alleged incident Rizwana, daughter of the complainant, was major and she left the house of her parents at her own, by calling the applicant and then accompanied him and thereafter got married with the applicant. If this is so, then the act of the applicant, as alleged in the complaint, cannot be termed as abduction of Rizwana under the pretext to marry her. In the premise, no offence is made out. 9. In the result, the criminal application succeeds. The FIR registered with the Waluj police station at CR No.40/2009 against the applicant is hereby quashed and set aide. 10. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3030-09