Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1541 (RAJ)

Vinu Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2007-08-13

DALIP SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner No. 1 Vinu Rathore of son of Shri Narain Lal and the petitioner No. 7 Neha daughter of Shri Lalit Kumar Dutta are present and have been identified by their counsel. 2. A complaint/FIR No. 167/2007 Police Station Bhimganjmandi, Kota came to be lodged by Shri Lalit Kumar Dutta for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioners No. 1 to 6 alleging that his daughter Neha had been kidnapped. In the FIR itself the age of Neha has been mentioned as 20 years. 3. Before this court this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the aforesaid FIR and along with the petition, a certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Temple, Nindar, Jaipur dated 28.05.2007 has been filed to show that Vinu, the petitioner No. 1 and Neha, the petitioner No. 7 have entered into marriage at the said temple. The age of Vinu has been disclosed as 24 years and that of Neha as 20 years. 4. Before the S.H.O., an application was submitted on 05.06.2007 with the copies to the I.G. Police, Kota and S.R, Kota City, Kota disclosing the fact of marriage. When the matter came up before this court and both Neha and Vinu appeared on 02.08.2007, the court directed the statement of Neha to be recorded by Deputy Register (Judicial). Accordingly, the Deputy Register (Judicial) recorded the statement of Neha on 02.08.2007. As per the aforesaid statement Neha has given her date of birth as 23.09.1986 and has stated that she has passed B.A. Examination. She has also stated that her father and father of Vinu are in the same department/office and live close-by and that Vinu, the petitioner No. 1 is dealing with computer hardware and that she out of her own free will has entered into the marriage with Vinu at the Arya Samaj Temple, Nindar, Jaipur. She has stated that her father Lalit Kumar Dutta was not in favour of the marriage and, therefore, the present FIR/Complaint was lodged. She has also stated that she wishes to reside with her husband Vinu. The Deputy Register (Judicial) has recorded on the aforesaid statement that same has been recorded as stated by the petitioner No. 7 Neha which has been accepted by her as correct. She has also stated that she wishes to reside with her husband Vinu. The Deputy Register (Judicial) has recorded on the aforesaid statement that same has been recorded as stated by the petitioner No. 7 Neha which has been accepted by her as correct. The mark-sheet of Vinu, the petitioner No. t from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer has been filed which gives his date of birth as 05.08.1983 and the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan of Neha Dutta gives her date of birth as 23.09.1986 which makes them both adult i.e. more that 21 and 18 years of age respectively. 5. After the statement was recorded by the Deputy Register (Judicial) on 02.08.2007 the case diary was called and the Investigating Office was also asked to remain personally present. The case diary has been received. The respondent No. 4 Lalit Kumar Dutta, the father of Neha was also directed to remain personally present but he has not appeared before the court today. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the facts mentioned hereinabove are not disputed. 7. In view of the above facts that Neha is a major being 20 to 21 years of age, as per her date of birth in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education being 23.09.1986 and as per her statement wherein she has stated that she has entered into the marriage with Vinu, the petitioner No. 1 of her own free will without any pressure or force being applied or threat or duress from any of the accused and the marriage is voluntary and of her choice and free will and that she is residing with Vinu and wants to reside with him. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that prima facie no case under Section 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C. is made out against the accused. 8. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I deem it just and proper to allow this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Consequently, this petition stands allowed. The FIR No. 167/2007 Police Station Bhimganjmandi, District Kota is hereby quashed.Petition Allowed. *******