Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No. 109 dated June 26, 1998 under Sections 343, 363, 366 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. A copy of the FIR has been attached as Annexure P-2 with the present petition. 2. A perusal of the FIR shows that FIR was got registered by Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal, who is arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the petition. He has stated in the FIR that in fact Sukhwinder Singh, who is petitioner No. 2 in the present petition has kindnapped Amandeep Dhaliwal, who is the daughter of respondent No. 4 Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal. On the basis of averments made therein, the FIR in question had been registered. The FIR in question seems to have arises out of the acrimony between the parties and displeasure of Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal, father of Amandeep Dhaliwal. 3. In fact Amandeep Dhaliwal herself had filed a complaint under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against her parents Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal and Smt. Supinder Kaur before the Magistrate at Chandigarh. On July 28, 1997 her statement was recorded in which she had stated that she was being tortured at the hands of her father Balbir Singh and mother Supinder Kaur and they had plans to marry her against her wishes with a Non Resident Indian settled in United States of America. A perusal of the statement shows that in fact relationship between Amandeep Dhaliwal and her parents was not cordial. 4. In these circumstances, it was only natural for Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal to react when Amandeep Dhaliwal started living with Sukhwinder Singh petitioner No. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner No. 1 Amandeep Dhaliwal was aged about 24 years when this petition was filed, while petitioner No. 2 Sukhwinder Singh was aged about 30-31 years on the date of filing of the petition. `Subsequently on February 3, 1999 Amandeep Dhaliwal had appeared in person in the Court when she had stated that she was not in any illegal confinement of petitioner No. 2 and she had left it house of her own accord as her father wanted to marry her with an old man. 5. `Subsequently on February 3, 1999 Amandeep Dhaliwal had appeared in person in the Court when she had stated that she was not in any illegal confinement of petitioner No. 2 and she had left it house of her own accord as her father wanted to marry her with an old man. 5. Both the petitioners are adults and when it is stated that petitioner No. 1 is living with petitioner No. 2 with her consent, then it cannot be said at all that any offence kidnapping or abduction had taken place. 6. In view of the statement made by Amandeep Dhaliwal in the Court on February 3, 1999 and in view of the other accompanying circumstances, I feel that no useful purpose would be served if the sword of Domiciles is kept hanging on the head of the petitioners. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to quash the FIR No. 109 dated June 26, 1998 against the petitioners. Order accordingly.