ARPITA KIRITBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors.

CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.1,3 and 4 and Mr. B.T. Rao, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. CR.MA/4062/2008 JUDGMENT

Having regard to the facts of the present case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

The facts stated briefly are that respondent No.2 herein had filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan under the provisions of section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) praying for issuance of a search warrant against petitioners No.2 to 4 alleging that petitioner No.1 who was a married man having a wife and children, along with petitioners No.2 and 3, had induced his daughter Arpita to elope with him and had unlawfully confined her. Pursuant to the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate had issued notice to the petitioners No.2 to 4, in response to which, the petitioners No.2 to 4 had submitted their reply before the concerned Court.

Being aggrieved by the proceedings under section 97 of the Code initiated against the petitioners No.2 to 4 herein, the petitioners herein have filed the present application under section 482 of the Code praying to quash the said proceedings.

The petitioner No.1 herein, Arpita Kirtibhai Patel is the daughter of respondent No.2 – original applicant. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that she is an adult and that she has voluntarily left her father's home and entered into a Maitri Karar with petitioner No.2, Kalpeshkumar and has started to reside with him at Surendranagar. That the petitioner No.1 has informed her father – respondent No.2 herein by CR.MA/4062/2008 JUDGMENT telephonic communication that she is happy with petitioner No.2 - Kalpeshkumar. It is the case of the petitioners that despite being well aware of the aforesaid position, the respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under section 97 of the Code on the absolutely false ground of confinement of his daughter by the petitioners No.2 to 4.

Mr. Chirag M. Pawar, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that considering the very fact that the petitioner No.1 has herself approached this Court and has stated that she is voluntarily residing with the petitioner No.2, there cannot be said to be any unlawful confinement so as to attract the provisions of section 97 of the Code.

On the other hand, Mr. B.T. Rao, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that considering the stand taken by the petitioner No.1 who the daughter of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings under section 97 of the Code initiated by him before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan.

In the aforesaid circumstances, when the respondent No.2 who is the original applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.85 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patan, is not desirous of proceeding further with the application, it is not necessary for this Court to consider and adjudicate the case on merits. In view of the statement made by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2, the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.85 of 2008 are required to be quashed and set aside. CR.MA/4062/2008 JUDGMENT

For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. Criminal Misc. Application No.85 of 2008 filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan as well as the process issued thereon are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. shekhar/-

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)