Allowed

Vidyadhar v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2018CRLMP/135/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging abduction. Relying on the recorded statement of the major victim who confirmed voluntary cohabitation with the petitioner, the court held that no offence was made out and disallowed FIR 165/2017.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.165/2017 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana along with all its subsequent proceedings.

Vidyadhar Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 135/2018

¶3

Vidyadhar S/o Dharampal Singh B/c Jat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kotda Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Pawan Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad B/c Jat, R/o Bhanwariya Ki, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Order

¶12

13/03/2018

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.165/2017 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Sikar for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC.

¶14

Ankita Devi, admittedly, had attained the age of majority and as stated by the learned counsel for the parties, is more than 20 years of age. She allegedly deserted her first husband and she has performed marriage with the petitioner. First husband of the petitioner had lodged FIR bearing No. 165/2017 stating therein that Ankita Devi has been abducted and thus, offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC are made out.

¶15

This Court on 17.2.2018 passed the following order:“Ankita Devi wife of the complainant-respondent no.2 is present in the court. She has been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-135/2018]

¶18

Alongwith the petition, affidavit of victim Ankita Devi is also annexed, wherein she stated that she has not been abducted and she is living happily with the petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence under Section 363, 366 and 120-B IPC is made out, especially when victim Ankita Devi is major as she is twenty years old.

¶20

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶21

On the asking of the court, Mr. RS Shekhawat, the learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. A copy of the petition has been served upon him.

¶22

Respondent no.2 be served through SHO, Police Station Neem Ka Thana.

¶23

At this stage, a direction is issued to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana to record statement of Smt. Ankita Devi and the same shall be forwarded to this Court and shall be made part of the paper book.

¶24

List this case on 7.3.2018. Till then, further proceedings arising out of impugned FIR are stayed.”

¶25

In pursuance of the said above said order, the statement of Ankita Devi has been recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The said statement is part of the paper book.

¶26

Ankita Devi in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she according to her own accord had gone with the petitioner and she is staying with him without any duress or coercion. She has further stated that she intends to stay with the petitioner.

¶27

Since, Ankita Devi has neither been forcefully detained nor abducted, no offence under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC is made out.

¶28

The learned public prosecutor has not opposed the quashing of FIR.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CRLMP-135/2018]

¶31

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed alongwith all its subsequent proceedings.

¶32

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶33

Mak/-

Vidyadhar v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyadhar v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramjeet Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Puranmal Verma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hanuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mrignayani Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sunil Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.