ORDER : RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. By way of this application, the applicant has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR registered against the applicant accused being CR.No. I-0041 of 2014 registered before Limbdi Police Station, Dist: Surendranagar, for the offences under Section 366, 506 and 507 of the IPC. 4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the applicant- Shashikantbhai Haribhai Babhanva shall hereinafter be referred to as applicant-accused and respondent no.2- Ms.Dakshaben daughter of Rashiklal Waghela shall hereinafter referred to as the original-complainant. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall hereinafter be referred as “Code” whereas, Indian Penal Code, 1860, be referred as “IPC” for short. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the the so-called incident occurred on 08.10.2013, and the FIR got registered on 02.04.2014, therefore there is a gross delay of more than six months to register the FIR and the complainant failed to assign any reasons in worth of explanations at the time of registering the FIR. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that so far as allegations levelled against the present applicant-accused is concerned, the applicant had abducted and kidnapped the victim from the lawful custody of the guardian of the girl. Admittedly, at the time of incident, the age of the victim is 19 years and she was major. It is alleged in the complaint itself that on the fateful day of the incident, the complainant was called at a particular place and from there she was abducted and kidnapped by the applicant-accused on a motor bike and took her to a far distant place and at that point of time, cloth was fixed in the mouth of the complainant. Immediately after reaching at that particular place she was directed to make signature on certain papers and produced before the concerned government authorities. At that time, the complainant has not raised her voice as it is alleged that threat was administered upon her. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel, submits that infact the applicant-accused and the original-complainant were neighbours and they got attracted towards each other which ultimately culminated into relationship and they developed love towards each other. At that time, the complainant has not raised her voice as it is alleged that threat was administered upon her. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel, submits that infact the applicant-accused and the original-complainant were neighbours and they got attracted towards each other which ultimately culminated into relationship and they developed love towards each other. The said fact has come to the notice of the family members of the original-complainant and they were against the said relationship and they tried to separate them from the relationship but, could not get success in their attempts. The applicant and the respondent both were major at that relevant point of time and decided to convert the said relationship into marriage and therefore they have decided to elope with each other and registered their marriage. The applicant-accused and original-complainant had solemnised their marriage as per Hindu rights and rituals and thereafter their marriage was registered before the Sub Registrars of Marriages office. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that as per the case of the prosecution the so called incident occurred on 08.10.2013, whereas marriage solemnized and registered on 09.10.2013 which clearly goes to show the gravity of the defence raised by the applicant. The marriage certificate along with photograph is produced at ‘Annexure-C’. The said documents clearly show that the marriage was solemnized on 09.10.2013. 5.4 Learned Advocate Mr.Patel, further submits that even after applicant and respondent were legally wedded husband and wife and they stayed together for more than four months and during that period, harassment continued on the part of the family members and relatives of the original-complainant. Therefore original-complainant constrained to register the complaint against her family members by way of preferring an application in the form of a complaint before the police officers Limbdi Police Station on 18.12.2013. The said application in the form of complaint is forwarded to the concerned police officers through RPAD. Therefore original-complainant constrained to register the complaint against her family members by way of preferring an application in the form of a complaint before the police officers Limbdi Police Station on 18.12.2013. The said application in the form of complaint is forwarded to the concerned police officers through RPAD. He further submitted that if the Hon’ble court would go through the content of the application in the event it would be found out that applicant and the original- complainant were in contact with each other since last more than five years and ultimately, the said relationship culminated into love affair and with her own will and volition she had decided to solemnize her marriage with the applicant-accused and therefore, she eloped with the applicant-accused and solemnized her marriage at village Trajpar, in Radhakrishna Temple as per Hindu rights and rituals. They have resided at different places and enjoyed their marital life. The family members were against the said relationship therefore they had made assault upon the family member of the applicant- accused and due to the said incident parents were constrained to leave their home as there were all possibilities that the relatives would also make attack upon them. The relatives of original-complainant are head strong persons, and due to threat administered by the accused-persons, despite their best efforts they were not able to appear before the concerned police officer to record their statement. Therefore considering the above factual aspects appropriate actions are required to be initiated against the guilty persons. 5.5 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that after the marriage, the applicant and the original complainant were happily residing together at Ahmedabad. Thereafter, on 27.03.2014, the applicant along with the original complainant were travelling to reach to the the house of the applicant’s friend, namely, Mahendrabhai residing at G.I.D.C., Wadhvan, at that time, when they alighted at Upasna Circle at around 9:45 in the morning and heading towards the G.I.D.C. on feet, the parents of the original complainant along with the other relatives came there in one Maruti car being its registration No.GJ-18-BA-4722 and first started altercation with the applicant and then assaulted him and forcibly took the original complainant along with them from the lawful custody of the applicant. They also threatened the applicant of dire consequences, pursuant to which, the applicant made an application on 27.03.2004 before the Wadhvan Police Station, a copy of which is on record. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that, thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. seeking custody of his wife. Thereafter, on the strength of the submissions made by the applicant, summons was issued to the original complainant, pursuant to which, she appeared before the Court and declined to go with the applicant-accused stating that she was abducted by the applicant-accused and there was no relationship between them. On the strength of the aforesaid stand of the original complainant, Section 97 application came to be rejected. The copy of the said application as well as the marriage certificate is also appended along with the memo of the application which clearly shows that the applicant-accused and the original complainant are the legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage has also been registered with the office of the Registrar of Marriage. 5.6 Learned Advocate Mr.Patel, submits that considering the statement of the complainant, an application of the search warrant had been rejected by the learned Judge and immediately on the same day the present complaint registered, stating that she was kidnapped and abducted from the lawful custody of her parents/guardians. The said action taken by the complainant clearly shows that the intent of the complainant was to harass the applicant. Therefore considering the story put forward by the complainant at the time of registration of the complaint is itself not palatable and believable one. Therefore even if the submissions is considered to be true and genuine, as it its in the entirety even though no offences could be said to have been made out, therefore considering the principles of law laid down the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. He further submits that the case of the applicant would squarely cover in those criteria. Therefore, the FIR and the consequential proceedings which are carried out by the Investigating Officer are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate Dr. Hardik Raval and learned APP Mr. He further submits that the case of the applicant would squarely cover in those criteria. Therefore, the FIR and the consequential proceedings which are carried out by the Investigating Officer are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate Dr. Hardik Raval and learned APP Mr. LB Dabhi, objected the present application and submitted that the present applicant accused and complainant were neighbors and they were in touch with each other since long. The present applicant accused has already married with another lady and as a result of some dispute between them they separated from their matrimonial relationship and then the applicant-accused wanted to maintain relationship with the original-complainant, with a view to the same, he has made many attempts but could not succeed, therefore, he has kidnapped and abducted the complainant. Learned Advocates further submitted that the entire sequence of events of the incident narrated in the FIR in a very graphical manner which clearly goes to show that the sole intention to register the marriage with the original-complainant was to keep her in his custody and hence the applicant-accused kidnapped the original-complainant from the legal custody of her guardian. Not only that the applicant-accused had also administered threat to the complainant of dire consequence to the family of the complainant and therefore the original-complainant had no other option left except to accept his demand and therefore she had made sign upon certain papers and not raised her voice before any authority which clearly goes to say the gravity of charge to the applicant and the involvement of the applicant and the commission of crime is clearly found from the registration of the complaint, therefore, the complaint is not required to be quashed and set aside. 6.1 Learned advocate Dr. Raval further submits that the detailed affidavit is filed by the complainant which clearly indicates complainant was studying in a nursing course and she was having original educational qualification papers and those set of documents are lying with the custody of the applicant. Dr. Raval further submits that the complainant was enticed by the applicant-accused to come along with him with all documents and as soon as the complainant came back from the custody of present applicant-accused, at several occasions the complainant made request to give her educational qualification papers back, but the applicant has kept those documents in his custody and not returned back to her. Dr. Raval further submits that thereafter one tragic incident happened during the pendency of the petition the complainant has committed suicide, however, no complaint is registered in that regard. Dr Raval further submits that the complainant is no more in existance and considering the overall aspects the application preferred by the applicant is required to be rejected. 7. Having heard learned advocates of both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and perusing the documents on record, prima facie, even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to statute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that there was delay in registering the complaint and not only that immediately on the very next day of the incident the applicant and original-complainant have solemnized their marriage as per the Hindu rites and rituals. So far as the role of the applicant-accused is alleged in narration of facts as well as chronology of the events, itself clearly goes on to show that the original-complainant has willingly and with her own volition eloped with the applicant-accused. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant-accused and the original-complainant has resided at several places and during that period the original- complainant has not raised her voice or registered any complaint. Therefore, the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated one. 9. At this stage, I may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . Therefore, the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated one. 9. At this stage, I may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . The parameters are:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to rivate and personal grudge.” We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra). ... 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra). ... At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look intomany other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 10. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. 10. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 11. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. 13. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. 13. Insofar as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. Further, in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023)5 SCC 360 has held in paragraph No.13 as follows: “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.” 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 . 15. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR.No. I-0041 of 2014 registered before Limbdi Police Station, Dist: Surendranagar as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant/s herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.