Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of FIR. Court quashed portion alleging abduction (Section 366) based on victim's statement of voluntary departure. Investigation directed for remaining charges. Previous stay vacated.
F.I.R. regarding Section 366 IPC quashed; investigation directed for other offences; stand order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.88/2010
Bhanwarlal & Anr.
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER : 7.2.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.DK Gaur, for the petitioners. Ms.Chandralekha, PP, for the respondent State.
Heard.
The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.10/2010 registered against the petitioner no.1 at P.S. Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 366, 308 r/w 34 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 Gomti is daughter of the first informant/respondent no.2 and she being a major girl has gone of her own free will and thus, ex-facie offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out. He thus submits that impugned F.I.R. in so far as it relates to offence under Section 366 IPC deserves to be quashed.
Learned PP has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the petitioner no.1 forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and then whilst
2
making an attempt to take away the girl, has caused injuries to the complainant Patram and his wife Mangi. Thus, the ingredients of offences under Sections 458, 308 and 323 IPC are disclosed against the petitioners.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and perused the impugned FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation.
From a perusal of the impugned FIR and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, it becomes apparent that undisputedly the petitioner no.2 is the allegedly abducted girl and is major being 19 years of age and she has stated that she went away with the petitioner no.1 of her own freewill. Thus, prima-facie the allegations of offence under Section 366 IPC are not made out against the petitioner no.1 in this case. But so far as the offences under Sections 458, 323 and 308 IPC are concerned, at this stage, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the said offences are not disclosed from the material available on the record.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition is partly allowed and the F.I.R. No.10/2010 registered against the petitioner no.1 at P.S. Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner in so far as it relates to offence under Section 366 IPC is hereby quashed but so far as other offences are concerned, the investigation
3
officer shall investigate the mater and then submit his report to the concerned court.
Stay order granted by this Court on 20.1.2010 stands vacated.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR for abduction should be quashed given the victim's statement that she left voluntarily.
Whether ingredients of offences under Sections 458, 323, and 308 IPC are disclosed at this stage.
Whether the stay order granted previously in this matter should be vacated.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhanwarlal
Gomti
State of Rajasthan
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
