AKASHBHAI PRADIPBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     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,

                                       Page 2 of 6
     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



                                      Page 3 of 6
     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


                                    Page 4 of 6
  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


                                    Page 5 of 6
         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




                                                                 Page 6 of 6