Judgment G. S. SINGHVI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. with a prayer to quash the First Information Report No. 364191 filed at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on 30th August, 1991 alleging commission of offence under Section 363, I. P. C. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner who belongs to Rajkot (Gujarat) and who is a bona fide resident of the State of Gujarat married non petitioner No. 1, Smt. Notan N. Shah on 16. 2. 1982 at Jam Nagar, Gujarat. One daughter, named, Ami was born on 1. 10. 1985 out of the wedlock. Petitioner Naresh Vadilal Shah had gone to Maskat to earn his livelihood and there he is stated to be serving with a private company. The non-petitioner No. 1 is said to be suffering from Schizophrenia and for this disease she had been regularly treated at the instance of the petitioner. She had made an application dated 28. 2. 1988 seeking divorce from the petitioner but the same was withdrawn on 30th April 1990. The petitioner has stated that a telegram dated, 15. 1. 1990 was sent to him at Maskat to the effect that his daughter Ami has disappeared. Petitioner was called to Jaipur. He came to Jaipur on 23. 4. 1990 and found that Ami had been dis-appeared: He went back to Maskat on 21. 6. 1990 and came to India in July 1991. He came to Jaipur on 18. 7. 1991. He requested the non-petitioner to give the child for some time so that he could take her to grant parents. The child was taken by the petitioner with the consent of the non-petitioner No. 1 but thereafter, she lodged a report dated, 30th August, 1991 alleging that the petitioner had taken away the daughter Ami to Rajkot. On the basis of report a case was registered by the Police Station Shastri Nagar. The Officers of the Police Station, Shastri Nagar went to Rajkot and got the custody of petitioners daughter Ami from his parents the petitioner applied for and was granted bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS case is that he had been in touch with his wife in India and had been regularly sending money for her maintenance and treatment. P. C. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS case is that he had been in touch with his wife in India and had been regularly sending money for her maintenance and treatment. She had herself expressed that no harassment had been caused by the petitioner. She also wrote letters to the petitioner that in case he had any difficult the non-petitioner was prepared to help him. Accordingly to the petitioner, the custody of the minor child was never taken by the petitioner with intent of committing any crime. In fact, the daughter was given by the non-petitioner herself with full knowledge that the petitioner was taking her to Rajkot. ( 4 ) IN support of the petition, Shri Jam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that the registration of the case by the police is wholly unwarranted. Shri Jam submitted that in a case where the wife was suffering from Schizophrenia, was, got treated by the petitioner and who had herself written that no harassment had been caused to her by the petitioner, the allegation against the petitioner that he had committed an offence under Section 363, I. P. C. cannot but be treated as false. Shri Jam submitted that during the pendency of this petition as compromise has been arrived at between the parties and on the basis of the compromise the parents of the petitioners Naresh Vadilal Shah have been appointed as guardians of the daughter Ami. The compromise was submitted by the parties in the Court of the 2nd Jt. District Judge, Rajkot on 25. 3. 1992 and the same has been accepted. Sri Jam has invited Courts attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Chandrakala Menon v. Capt. Vipin Menon and Anr. , and submitted that the father has been recognised as a natural guardian of the child and therefore, he cannot be charged with an offence of kidnapping. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the record of the case and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) A look at the First Information Report shows that the non-petitioner No. 1 has alleged that the petitioner had given beating to her and forcibly taken away a girl of 51/2 years and she was being retained in custody with his father, Shri Chunni Lal Shah, Vijay Amar Chand Street, Kothaira House, Rajkot. ( 6 ) A look at the First Information Report shows that the non-petitioner No. 1 has alleged that the petitioner had given beating to her and forcibly taken away a girl of 51/2 years and she was being retained in custody with his father, Shri Chunni Lal Shah, Vijay Amar Chand Street, Kothaira House, Rajkot. She also stated that her husband had threatened her to go to a foreign country leaving her here and he had threatened her that if she does not given divorce, he would cut the girl two pieces. If this First Information Report is looked into the context of the letters written by the non-petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner, it becomes absolutely clear that the contents of the First Information Report are far from truth. Above all, once the parties have entered into a compromise and the same has been accepted by the Second Joint District Judge, Rajkot on 25. 3. 1992, there remains no justification for allowing the investigation in F. I. R. No. 364/91 to continue. ( 7 ) IN Mrs. Chandra Kala Menons case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court had considered a case in which the husband was alleged to have taken custody of the minor child. The Magistrate had passed order directing the husband to hand over the child to the wife. The High Court quashed the order of the Magistrate holding that the father was the natural guardian of the child and that he could not have been charged with the offence of kidnapping. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of the High Court. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The First Information Report No. 364/9 1, registered with the Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Section 363, I. P. C. is quashed. Petition allowed.