Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 175 (BOM)

Sumeet Maruti Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

2013-01-22

P.V.HARDAS, S.B.DESHMUKH

body2013
Judgment P.V. HARDAS, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India., the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 176 of 2012 under section 363, 366 read with 34 of I.P.C. pray for quashing of the first information report on the ground that a perusal of the first information report does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. 3. A first information report against the petitioners came to be lodged on 30th October, 2012 on the basis of which an offence vide Crime No. 176 of 2012 for offence punishable under section 363 and 366 read with 34 of I.P.C. was registered. 4. The allegations in the first information report against the petitioners were that petitioners had kidnapped Supriya Bhagwan Karankal, daughter of the first informant and accordingly the aforesaid offences came to be registered. 5. During the pendency of this petition, Criminal Application No. 5731 of 2012 came to be filed by Supriya contending therein that she was the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 Sumeet and in fact had accompanied him on the date of the incident at her own free will and had not been kidnapped. Undisputedly, the age of Supriya was more than 18 years. The Division Bench of this Court while allowing the aforesaid criminal application, recorded a finding that the contents of the application were orally verified by the learned Judges and accordingly the application for intervention was allowed. Learned A.P.P., who has produced the case diary for our perusal, also states that the age of Supriya undisputedly is more than 18 years and her statement recorded during investigation reveals that she had accompanied the petitioner without there being any coercion and she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the fact that the age of the victim who is allegedly to have been kidnapped, is more than 18 years and the fact that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner No. 1, no offence punishable under section 363 much less under section 366 I.P.C. is made out. 6. In the light of the fact that the age of the victim who is allegedly to have been kidnapped, is more than 18 years and the fact that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner No. 1, no offence punishable under section 363 much less under section 366 I.P.C. is made out. To allow the investigation to proceed in the said crime would be an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash the registration of the offence against the petitioners. 7. Shri Brahme, learned counsel representing the first informant and mother of Supriya has made a very passionate plea before this Court that the first informant had no occasion to meet her daughter after the alleged incident. Learned counsel, therefore, states that though an offence punishable under section 363 of I.P.C. may not be made out yet an offence punishable under section 366 of I.P.C. would certainly be made out. The aforesaid submission, according to us, is completely misconceived. Section 366 of I.P.C. would only come into effect if either abduction or kidnapping is established. In the present case, since Supriya had voluntarily gone with the petitioner No.1 and is the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No.1, no offence either of kidnapping or abduction is made out. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Resultantly, we allow this criminal writ petition and quash and set aside the first information report which is registered as Crime No. 176 of 2012 under section 363, 366 read with section 34 of I.P.C. against the Petitioners. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.