MAFAT LAL vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Non­Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).592 OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) No(s). 1806 of 2021)

VERSUS

J U D G M E N T VIKRAM NATH, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur  in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 591 of 2020 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 1 of   the  Code of Criminal Procedure,1973   for   quashing   of   First Signature Not Verified 2 Information Report  No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.04.09 11:52:24 IST Reason: 1 In short “CrPC” 2 In short “FIR” 1 with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.   3. Relevant   facts   giving   rise   to   this   appeal   are   that   one Prahalad Dan gave a written complaint stating that his minor daughter   had   been   abducted   by   the   appellant   no.1   on 22.05.2005 at about 2.30PM.  On the said complaint FIR No. 45 of 2005 was registered at Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.  Investigation was commenced but the   whereabouts  of  the  missing  girl could  not be  traced. Despite   best   efforts   when   the   abducted   girl   and   the   accused could not be traced, the investigating officer, after recording the statements   of   the   complainant   and   the   others,   submitted   a chargesheet   against   the   appellant   no.1   under   the   aforesaid Sections   and,   further,   requested   the   court   to   initiate   the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC.   4. The investigating officer also submitted chargesheet against the father of the appellant, namely, Banna Lal under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC.   On the basis of the said chargesheet Banna Lal was put to trial and Regular Criminal Case No. 23 of 2010 was registered.  The Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2 Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur vide judgement and order dated 03.09.2011 came to the conclusion that the charges could not be proved against the accused Banna Lal of being involved in any manner   in   the   alleged   abduction   of   the   daughter   of   the complainant, but rather he himself made efforts for searching his son and the abductee.  Accordingly, Banna Lal was acquitted of all the charges.   5. In the year 2020, the appellant along with the abductee Seema Parewa filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Rajasthan   High   Court   which   was   registered   as   S.B.   Criminal Misc. Petition No. 591 of 2020 praying for quashing of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 and all proceedings arising therefrom.  In the said petition   it   was   stated   that   the   appellant   and   the   abductee (appellant No. 1 and 2 respectively) were well known to each other and were into deep love affair, which relationship was not acceptable   to   the   father   of   the   abductee.     Under   compelling circumstances, both of them parted from their families in the year 2005 and later got married on 25.12.2006.  It was, further, stated that report was submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC and a   request   for   invoking   Section   299   CrPC   was   made   by   the 3 investigating officer. The matter is still pending before the Trial Court against the appellant and coercive steps were being taken. It was, further, stated that almost 15 years have passed, the appellant and the abductee were living happily married and had also been blessed with a boy on 27.02.2014.  It is further stated that the abductee was never victimized, abducted nor kidnapped but on her own volition left her parental home on account of the unpleasant and disturbing circumstances created by her father. It is also stated that the abductee was 17 years of age at the time when   she   left   her   home   on   her   own   volition   and   that   the appellant had no role to play in her parting with her family. 6. The High Court although records all such facts, appears to have been swayed with the fact that the abductee was a minor at the time when she left her home and that the appellant had evaded   the   investigation   and   had   been   successful   in   keeping away from the process of law for several years.  The High Court further   proceeded   on   the   assumption   that   the   appellant   had actually   kidnapped/abducted   the   minor   daughter   of   the complainant. 4 7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2.  Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court.  Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits.  Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental   home   on   her   own   free   volition.     The   appellants   are married   since   December   2006   and   have   been   living   happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old.  No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants.  It would be a futile exercise.  Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC.   In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366  IPC would  come  into play  only  where there  is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman.     This   offence   also   would   not   be   made   out   once   the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love   with   the   appellant   no.1   and   that   she   left   her   home   on 5 account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married  appellant no.1  on her  own free  will without  any influence being exercised by appellant no.1. 8. Considering   the   overall   facts   and   circumstances   of   this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR   and   all   consequential   proceedings   that   arise   therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 of the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District   Jaipur   under   Sections   363   and   366   IPC   and   all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. …………..........................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER] ………….........................J. [VIKRAM NATH] NEW DELHI MARCH 28, 2022.  6