JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by Smt. Sumitra daughter of Magnaram for quashing of the FIR No. 108/2006, dated 25.12.2006 registered at police station Arai district Ajmer for the offence under Section 143, 363, and 366 IPC. 2. The aforesaid FIR was lodged by one Sanwara son of Shri Nanda against 9 accused persons including Girraj with the allegation that his sister Sumitra who is aged about 16 to 17 years and that about 20 days earlier he had gone for some ceremony and when he returned late at night he found his sister Sumitra is missing. It is mentioned in the FIR that on making an enquiry one Gordhan son of Ram Lal informed him that Gordhan and Hathi Ram when they were coming from the side of the petrol pump had seen Sumitra in a Jeep along with Girraj, Harkaran, Sardar son of Kana, Shesh Raj, Kartar son of Radhakishan, Radhakishan, Kana son of Chittar by caste Jat resident of Srirampura and a few more persons including one Mehram son of Sri Teju resident of Nayagawn who had conspired to kidnap his sister had forcibly taken her. It has also been mentioned that these persons had forcibly got his sister married to Girraj (Nata Marriage). It was also mentioned that Sumitra had been' wearing a Madliya round her neck weighing 1 tola gold and silver waist band weighing 1/2(half) Kg. along with bangles and silver ancklets etc. 3. Upon the aforesaid report being lodged on 25.12.2006 the police registered an FIR No. 108/2006 and started investigation. 4. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt. Sumitra and she has stated in the petition that after the death of her father Nanda her mother left the home and has gone in Nata leaving two sons including the informant and 3 daughters including the petitioner. She has stated in the petition that her brother after having taken money first got her married to then Pradhan Kudi son of Sanwara Kudi as per the Nata Custom. She has stated that she stayed with him for two years but when Pradhan Kudi stopped paying the money to the petitioner's brother her brother forced her to come home. 5. It has thereafter been stated that the petitioner's brother took Rs. 20,000/- from Girraj and gave her in Nata Marriage to him on 3.12.2006. She has stated that she stayed with him for two years but when Pradhan Kudi stopped paying the money to the petitioner's brother her brother forced her to come home. 5. It has thereafter been stated that the petitioner's brother took Rs. 20,000/- from Girraj and gave her in Nata Marriage to him on 3.12.2006. Sanwara the brother of the petitioner demanded more money from Girraj and when Girraj was unable to pay, the present report has been lodged against Girraj and others. The petitioner has also stated that she is 22 years of age and not 16 years as stated in the FIR and that she is living with Girraj after her marriage and the present report is a false and malafide one against the accused persons including Girraj as he could not fulfill other demands made by the brother of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition has submitted that the petitioner was recovered by the police in the proceedings under Section 109 and 41 Cr. P.C. and produced before the learned Executive Magistrate and as mentioned in the order dated 02.05.2007 the petitioner in these proceedings was also subjected to be medically examined and the Medical Officer who examined the petitioner has given an opinion that the age of the petitioner is between 19-20 years. The petitioner has also given her age as 20 years before the learned Magistrate as mentioned in the order dated 02.05.2007 which has been filed along with this petition and a copy of the report/opinion given by the Medical Officer has also been filed along with this petition. As per the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 02.05.2007 on the basis of the finding based upon the age of the petitioner as well as the statement given by the petitioner before him the learned Magistrate after taking a bond has released the petitioner and she is living with her in laws. 7. As per the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 02.05.2007 on the basis of the finding based upon the age of the petitioner as well as the statement given by the petitioner before him the learned Magistrate after taking a bond has released the petitioner and she is living with her in laws. 7. When the petitioner appeared personally before this court on 29.05.2007 this court with a view to ascertain the genuinness of the averments made in the petition and also to allow time to the petitioner to think independently, as she had come from the custody of the accused persons though it is submitted that Girraj is in judicial custody, directed that the petitioner Sumitra be placed in the care of Superintendent of Women's Home, at Jaipur and she may be produced before this court on 31.05.2007 for recording her statement. 8. On 31.05.2007 the petitioner appeared before the court and her statement was recorded as directed by the court by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) which is on record. 9. As per her statement dated 31.05.2007 she was married as per Nata Custom to Girraj the accused and that the marriage was solemnized by her family members (Peeharwale). As per the statement given by the petitioner Sumitra her brother Sanwara the informant wants to get her married to one Ratan who allegedly includes in trafficking of women after paying the money to persons to sell the girl to him. 10. She has also stated that the present report is false one. 11. She has also stated that she is stying with Girraj (her husband) and his family happily and was not taken forcibly or kidnapped by any person and none of the accused named in the FIR kidnapped her and she is living at her in-laws place happily of her own free will. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and having gone through the statement given by the petitioner on 31.05.2007 as recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) before this court and having gone through the proceedings before the learned Magistrate as well as the certificate of the Medical examination of the petitioner the following facts emerged : (i) That prima facie the age of the petitioner Sumitra in respect of whose kidnapping the report FIR No. 108/2006 was lodged at police station. Arai district Ajmer by her brother Sanwara is more then 18 years of age and, therefore, she is major; (ii) As per FIR and the averments made in the petition and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated. 02.05.2006 as well as the statement given before this court by the petitioner it has come on record that the petitioner is married to Girraj one of the accused; (iii) The petitioner has stated that she is living with her husband Girraj and his family happily and voluntarily and that she has not been kidnapped and wants to live with her in-laws and her husband and that she may be permitted to reside with her husband and in-laws; (iv) She also stated in the statement recorded on 31.05.2007 that neither Girraj nor any of the other accused persons forcibly kidnapped her. She went voluntarily with the accused as she is married to Girraj. 13. In the light of the above finding which have been arrived at based on material produced before this court, the report FIR No. 108/2006 lodged by Sanwara for the offence under Section 143, 363 and 366 IPC does not stand scrutiny and appears to be false and the same deserves to be quashed. The ingredient of the offence in the light of the facts which have come on record are not made out. This petition is accordingly allowed. The FIR No. 108/2006 Idoged by Sanwara at police Station, Arai District Ajmer is hereby quashed. 14. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) shall inform the Superintendent, Women's Home at Jaipur and the petitioner shall be released immediately from the care of the Women's home, Jaipur. The petitioner is free to reside with .her husband and in-laws as per her desire.Petition Allowed - Petitioner ordered to be released from women's House. *******