R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21078 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== AKASHBHAI PRADIPBHAI PATEL & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 YUVRAJ BRAMHBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 14/08/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. As per the report submitted on 30.08.2023, which was already on record, it transpires that Petitioner No. 3, namely, Hiteshbhai Pradipbhai Patel, was charge-sheeted and tried in POCSO Case No. 67 of 2015, which culminated in his acquittal vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2017. Therefore, the present petition qua Petitioner No. 3 would not survive. 1.1 Petitioner No. 2 in the present petition is the victim - wife of the present Petitioner No. 1, Akashbhai Pradipbhai Patel, and the daughter of the original complainant–Respondent No. 2 herein. Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 2. By way of the present application 4led under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR-I-125-2015 registered with the Bharuch C Division Police Station, for the o8ences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC read with Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. The contents of the FIR are as under:- Date: 19.06.2015 “My name is Jayeshkumar Shanubhai Solanki, caste: Hindu, age: 41 years, occupation: business, residing at Nizam Wadi, Zandeshwar, Taluka and District Bharuch, Mobile No. 8387203628. I have personally appeared and state that I wish to lodge my complaint and have the facts recorded as under: I reside at the above-mentioned address with my family and earn our livelihood by carrying on the business of milk. I have one daughter, namely Damini, aged 17 years and 8 months. She had earlier appeared for the Standard 10 examination and had failed. I bring milk from outside villages and sell the milk in the society areas of Bharuch. For this purpose, I remain outside from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and in this manner I carry on my business and maintain my family. My daughter Damini had earlier come into contact with one Akash Pradeep Patel, who is the nephew of Bipinbhai Chandubhai, who was residing as a tenant in the house of Prakashbhai Solanki, situated one house away from our house. The said Akash Pradeep Patel was working at Dudh Dhara Dairy. My daughter used to have conversations with him, but we did not come to know about the same. However, about one month ago, when Damini had gone away, we searched for her and found her on the following day. On asking her, she stated that she had gone with Akash, who had taken her saying that they were going out for a visit. Since we found our daughter on the next day, we did not do anything at that time. However, we did not meet the said boy. Thereafter, we had been keeping watch over Damini. Today, R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 when I left my house at about 6:00 p.m. to take milk, my wife Raksha called me and told me that she was cutting vegetables in front of the house and Damini was inside the house. Thereafter, after cutting the vegetables, when she went into the kitchen and called out to Damini, Damini was not seen inside the house. Therefore, she again looked in the courtyard, but Damini was also not seen there. She stated that it appeared that Damini had gone away again. On hearing this, I immediately came home, and my brothers Chirag and Naresh and I started searching in the surrounding area, but she could not be found anywhere. Therefore, this boy has enticed and taken away my minor daughter Damini from our lawful guardianship with the intention of marrying her and has gone towards his native place, Biriyana, Taluka Lunawada. Previously, when Damini had been taken away, his elder brother Hitesh had taken her in his rickshaw, but at that time also he did not give us any true information. Therefore, at present also, he has assisted in taking her away, and when we went to ask him, he stated that he did not know anything. Thus, although Hiteshbhai Pradeepbhai Patel is aware of the matter, he is also not giving the correct information. Therefore, it is my complaint that my daughter Damini, aged 17 years and 8 months, has been taken away from our lawful guardianship by the accused Akash Pradeepbhai Patel, resident of Biriyana, Taluka Lunawada, who, despite knowing that she was underage, enticed and persuaded her by giving her an inducement of marriage and took her away with the intention of fulfilling his intention of committing an illicit act. Further, Hiteshbhai Pradeepbhai Patel, who assisted in taking her away, is also complained against. I request that legal action be taken against them. My witnesses are those stated in the complaint and such other persons as may be revealed during the course of investigation, etc.” 4. It is averred in the memo of the petition that the family of the Original Complainant belongs to the Nizami (Solanki) Community, whereas the family of the present Petitioner No. 1 belongs to the Patel community. The daughter of the Original R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 are in a committed relationship, and since the family of the Original Complainant had opposed the inter-caste marriage and their relationship and was forcibly arranging her betrothal/marriage elsewhere, they were compelled to take such action under the threat and wrath of the family, as also under the fear of violence and social and communal clashes. The daughter of the Original Complainant solemnized the marriage with the Petitioner No. 1 after attaining the age of majority. Thus, it is prayed that the petition be allowed. 5. Though served none appears for the Original Complainant – Respondent No. 2 herein. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that :- 6.1 The Original Complainant has executed an a?davit dated 01.07.2016, which forms part and parcel of the investigation papers, which would further reveal that he does not wish to pursue the further investigation or the impugned FIR. 6.2 He further drew the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which re@ects that she was having a love a8air with Petitioner No. 1 and that she voluntarily left her parents’ house. Petitioner No. 1 did not indulge in any sexual activity with the present Petitioner No. 2, and they solemnized their marriage after attaining the age of majority. 7. It is not in dispute that on the date of o8ence, the age of R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 the victim is 17 years and 8 months as narrated in the FIR. 7.1 In the case S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras AIR 1965 SC 942, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "But when the girl (who though a minor had attained the age of discretion and is on the verge of attaining majority and is a senior college student) from the house of the relative of the father where she is kept, herself telephones the accused to meet her at a certain place, and goes there to meet him and finding him waiting with his car gets into that car of her own accord, and the accused takes her to various places and ultimately to the Sub-Registrar's Officer where they get an agreement to marry registered, and there is no suggestion that this was done by force or blandishment or anything like that on the part of the accused but it is clear from the evidence that the insistence of marriage came from her side, the accused by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have 'taken' her out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship, that is, the father. The fact of her accompanying the accused all along is quite consistent with her own desire to be the wife of the accused in which the desire of accompanying him wherever he went is of course implicit. Under these circumstances, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of taking away the girl out of the keeping of her father. She has willingly accompanied him and the law does not cast upon him the duty of taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him." 7.2 As far as the allegations under the provisions of the POCSO Act are concerned, more particularly Sections 7 and 8, neither from the Section 164 statement nor from the a?davit sworn by the victim, which is also placed on record, would it remotely suggest that any act committed by Petitioner No. 1 would attract R/CR.MA/21078/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2026 the penal provisions relating to sexual assault. 7.3 In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR being CR-I-125-2015 lodged before the Bharuch C Division Police Station, for the o8ences punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC read with Section 7 and 8 of the POSCO Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, stands quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (P. M. RAVAL, J) MAHENDRA M PUROHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/08/2026 15:23:29