It is contended that even though the name of the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the ground that petitioner is cousin of co-accused Ravi Kumar. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim is major and she was married to some one but she came back to her parents after some time and eloped. It is next contended that victim and Ravi Kumar both had an affair and both have succeeded to elope and petitioner has apprehension that they might have solemnized marriage and petitioner undertakes that he is ready for co-operation in the investigation and whenever he happens to know the whereabouts of the accused Ravi Kumar and the victim, he will immediately inform the Investigating Officer and he has neither kidnapped the victim nor induced her or compelled her regarding her marriage; much reliance in this regard has been placed on the contentions as made in para 9,10,.11 of the writ petition; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
