Laxmiben and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

Akil Kureshi, J.—Petitioners are the original accused in complaint bearing C.R. No. I-60 of 2010 of Deesa Police Station at Annexure A. The complaint is filed for offence punishable u/s 365, 366, 380 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that daughter of the complainant who was aged about 21 years on the date of the incident i.e. 2.4.2010 had joined Petitioner No. 2 because of their intimate relations. The complainant being father of the girl lodged the said complaint making allegations of her kidnapping by the Petitioners as well as of their having committed theft in the house. From the record, however, it emerges that the complainant''s own daughter sided with the Petitioner. She has filed an affidavit dated 10th April 2010 stating that she has left her father''s house voluntarily since her father was pressurizing her into marriage with a person whom she did not approve. She has stated that she has not taken any valuable or ornament or cash from her father''s house and the complaint is a false one. Her birth record issued by the School where she had studied is also produced on record. Her date of birth is shown to be 1.6.88. The Petitioners have also produced a so called agreement between Petitioner No. 2 and the daughter of the complainant dated 10.4.2010 stating that she is residing voluntarily with Petitioner No. 2.

From the above, it emerges that daughter of the complainant on her own volition left her parents house and joined Petitioner No. 2. It further appears that Petitioner No. 2 at the relevant time was married. Thus, though there was an affair between him and the complainant''s daughter, they could not get married. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that subsequently, Petitioner No. 2 who is stated to be aged 25 years, has obtained customary divorce and has also married the daughter of the complainant.

In addition to the above, I have also taken into account the fact that the complainant though served has remained absent.

Viewed in the background of the above facts, the allegations in the complaint are that the accused on 2.4.2010, had forcibly taken away the daughter of the complainant in their car and upon further inquiry the complainant found that certain valuable articles from the house, such as, gold ornaments, cash, etc. were also missing. Significantly such complaint was filed on 7.4.2010. On the face of it, the complaint does not inspire confidence. The complainant''s daughter was more than 21 years of age. She herself stated that she left her father''s house voluntarily since her father was pressurizing her to get married to a person she did not approve of. Further, there is no iota of material to suggest any theft from the premises. Allegations of theft when allegations of kidnapping are not sustainable is a known tactic often used by complainants who put the police machinery into motion and secure the presence of errand boy and girl through the use of police force.

In the present case, I find that the allegations of theft made in the complaint are inherently improbable and are not supported by any evidence. Police has also not produced anything even to prima facie suggest that there was any theft in the house of the complaint.

Taking into account totally of the facts and the circumstances, complaint at annexure A bearing C.R. No. I-60/10 of Deesa Police Station is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.