JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Gurjit Singh and Meenakshi Arora, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 200 dated 30.8.2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 363 and 366A of Indian Penal Code on the ground that petitioner No. 2 is a major and she had left the house of her parents of her own will without any threat, pressure, inducement or allurement and was not taken or enticed by petitioner No.1 or any other person and that the petitioners have married against the wishes of respondents No. 4 and 5 and therefore, no offence stands committed by petitioner No.1. 2. On the allegations that Meenakshi Arora, his daughter who was born on 3.8.1994, was abducted by Gurjit Singh alias Geeta, petitioner No.1 on 30.6.2012 by alluring her of getting married with her, Satpal Arora, respondent no. 4 had lodged a report on 30.8.2012 against petitioner No.1 on which case bearing FIR No. 200 dated 30.8.2012 was registered at Police Station Sultanpur for an offence punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no case of kidnapping made out against petitioner No.1 because both the petitioners were in love and they went away of their own and have married and are living together. According to him, on 30.6.2012, the date when Meenakshi Arora is claimed to have been kidnapped by Gurjit Singh, petitioner No.1, she was on the verge of attaining the age of majority, her date of birth as per the complainant himself being 3.8.1994. He has further submitted that after attaining the age of 18 years, Meenakshi Arora has married with Gurjit Singh and they are now husband and wife. According to him, no offence is, therefore, made out against Gurjit Singh and the FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, who are present in person in the court, has submitted that the offence stands committed when Meenakshi Arora was taken out of lawful guardianship of her parents by Gurjit Singh. According to him, the FIR cannot be said to be based on absurd allegations. He has further submitted that it cannot be claimed that no case is made out from those allegations against petitioner No.1. 5. According to him, the FIR cannot be said to be based on absurd allegations. He has further submitted that it cannot be claimed that no case is made out from those allegations against petitioner No.1. 5. The FIR has been registered for offence punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. A close perusal of the ingredients of section 366A shows that this case does not attract the penal provisions of section 366A. 6. Under section 366A, the vital ingredient is that the intention of or knowledge of likely consequences with the accused in inducing a minor girl to go from any place or to do any act should be that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Here, there was no such intention on the part of Gurjit Singh. Even if it is taken that Meenakshi Arora was kidnapped, she was not kidnapped for being forced to illicit intercourse with another person. The petitioners have married and this clearly shows that whatever had been done was for the purpose of marriage. 7. It is a fact that Meenakshi Arora was born on 3.8.1994. On 30.6.2012, the date when she was alleged to have been kidnapped, she was at the verge of attaining the age of majority. There is nothing in the FIR to show that petitioner No.1 had taken or enticed Meenakshi Arora by any allurement or any other positive act. 8. Clear distinction has been drawn between the expression “taking” and “allowing a minor to accompany a person” by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between “taking” and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstance can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of s. 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.” 9. Here, the petitioners were in love and they left their parental places on their own with the intent to marry. They have been quite sensible who have waited for the girl to come up of marriageable age and have married after she attained the age of majority. They are, moreover, living together. In these circumstances, the offence punishable under section 363 IPC also cannot be said to be attracted to the facts of this case. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find the petitioners to have succeeded in showing that the offence under sections 363 and 366A IPC are not attracted to the facts of this case. Hence, the case in hand is abuse of process of the court. The petition is, consequently, allowed and FIR No. 200 dated 30.8.2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------