Mafat Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).592 OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) No(s). 1806 of 2021)

MAFAT LAL & ANR ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

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

of the Code of Criminal Procedure,19731 for quashing of First Signature Not Verified

Information Report2 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