ORDER :- This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in FIR No.136 of 2007 dated 9.4.2007 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 363 IPC. 2. The second respondent lodged a complaint before police alleging as follows : Herself, her husband, son and her brother's daughter Zahera Hassan Razvi @ Maria, aged about 12 years, are living together. The petitioner, who is no other than father of said Maria, tried to take her so many times without her will. In the year 2005, a private case was registered against the complainant and her husband regarding the said girl. She also filed cases in High Court of A.P. and in Family Court, and the Courts delivered judgments in her favour to the effect that the girl should stay with her only. On 9.4.2007 at about 1.00 p.m., while the girl Maria was returning from school, the petitioner and some others came to her and forcibly too her away in a white Indica car. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor girl Maria and therefore question of kidnapping the girl by the petitioner does not arise; that when the second respondent and her husband took away the daughter of the petitioner, wife of petitioner filed a complaint against them which was referred to police, who registered the same as Crime No.283 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 363A(3), 386, 506 read with 120B IPC; that when the police did not conduct any investigation, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21171 of 2006 wherein this Court directed the police to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet. He further contended that the second respondent is not a lawful guardian of the minor; that the second respondent or her husband have no status or any legal right to have custody of the minor girl; that the ingredients of the complainant, if taken as true and correct, at this stage they do not make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent and her husband are the guardians of the minor girl; that the second respondent and her husband are looking after welfare of the girl since her childhood; that the minor girl is not willing to go with the petitioner and by force they took away her; that suppressing all the facts, the present criminal petition is filed. Hence, he prayed to vacate the stay and dismiss the criminal petition. 5. There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the F.I.R. do not make out a cognizable offence, then the proceedings are liable to be quashed. To prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The case is registered for the offence under Section 363 IP.C. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, under Section 363 IPC. 'Kidnap' is defined under Section 361 IPC. Whoever takes or entices any minor under 'sixteen' years of age if a male, or under 'eighteen' years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Under explanation thereto, 'lawful guardian' include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. The object of this section and cognate sections is at least as much to protect children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes, as for the protection of the rights of parents and guardians. The essence of the offence of kidnapping as defined in the section is taking of the minor out of the keeping of the guardian without the guardian's consent. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner is no other than father of the minor girl, aged about 14 years as on the date of offence. The essence of the offence of kidnapping as defined in the section is taking of the minor out of the keeping of the guardian without the guardian's consent. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner is no other than father of the minor girl, aged about 14 years as on the date of offence. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife filed I.A. No.475 of 2006 in O.P. No.308 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad for interim custody of the minor child Maria. Admittedly, the girl was under the care and custody of the second respondent and her husband. That petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner and his wife are not entitled for interim custody of said minor girl Maria, who is under the care and custody of second respondent and her husband. So also, the second respondent and her husband filed Crl. MP No.265 of 2007 in Crime No.283 of 2005 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for custody of the minor. The said petition was also dismissed. Wife of the petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the second respondent herein, her husband and another for the offences under Sections 363A(3), 386, 506 read with 120B IPC. The second respondent and her husband were arrested and produced before Court on 29.12.2006. 7. From the admitted facts, it is clear that the minor girl was under the care and custody of the second respondent herein and her husband. Admittedly no competent Court declared the second respondent herein as lawful guardian of the minor girl Maria. Since the petitioner, who is father of the girl, is natural guardian and when the second respondent was not lawfully entrusted with the custody of the minor girl, even if the petitioner took away the minor girl it cannot be said to be kidnapping the girl. The expression 'lawful guardian' must be liberally construed. The entrustment may be by a legal guardian. It may be written or oral, express or implied. When there is no entrustment of the girl with the second respondent, she cannot be said to be lawful guardian or legal guardian of the minor girl. The expression 'lawful guardian' must be liberally construed. The entrustment may be by a legal guardian. It may be written or oral, express or implied. When there is no entrustment of the girl with the second respondent, she cannot be said to be lawful guardian or legal guardian of the minor girl. Therefore, there is no material to show that the second respondent is the lawful guardian or legal guardian of the minor girl as on the date of the alleged offence. Since the petitioner is natural guardian of the minor, he is entitled to take the child. Hence, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offence under Section 363 IPC is made out against the petitioner. So, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 8. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings in FIR No.136 of 2007 dated 9.4.2007 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad.