M.Cr.C.No. 5921/2011 21.09.2011 Mr. S.S. Kushwah, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. Mr. M.M. Shrivastava, Advocate for complainant. Heard counsels for the parties for final disposal of this petition at motion hearing stage. ORDER (ORAL) This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeks quashing of the FIR No. 1156/2010 got registered against them by the father of the prosecutrix at police station Gwalior, District Gwalior for offence under sections 363 & 366 IPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely roped by the father of the prosecutrix in the present case and according to him, the petitioners never kidnapped the prosecutrix. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the essential ingredients of offence under sections 363 & 366 of IPC do not exist in view of the fact that the prosecutrix has married of her own with the petitioner No. 1. The counsel has brought it to the notice of the Court that earlier a habeas corpus petition being W.P. No. 527/2011 (Cri) was filed for production of the prosecutrix and in that case corpus of the prosecutrix was produced before the Division Bench of this Court (hearing habeas corpus petition), wherein the prosecutrix had made a statement that she has married petitioner No. 1 without any pressure on her. She had also produced the copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Hindu Vivah Sansthanam Samiti. The statement of the prosecutrix that she has married with the petitioner No. 1 of her own free will was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court and directions were given to the police not to cause any harassment to the petitioners. The prosecutrix has also stated before the Division Bench that she was not in illegal detention on the date she was produced before the Division Bench of this Court in habeas corpus petition. This statement of the prosecutrix necessarily implies that she was not kidnapped or abducted by the petitioners, therefore, essential ingredients of sections 363 & 366 of IPC cannot be said to exist for proceedings against them under the said sections. Hence, this petition is allowed. The FIR No. 1156/2010 got registered by the father of the prosecutrix against the petitioners is quashed. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (S.N. Aggarwal) J U D G E Durgekar*