JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner accused Chhotu @ Gautam Meena preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 227/2011 for offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 complainant Kalyan Sahai submitted a written report on 07.10.2011 at Police Station Sadar Sanganer, Jaipur to the effect that his daughter Meera aged about 17 years got married with Nand Lal resident of Baas Bilwa 3 years back but he did not send her to her matrimonial home. On 06.10.2011 in midnight while all family members were sleeping, her daughter Meera went out of home, they believed that she might went for drinking water or for natural call. In the morning they look for her in surroundings but could not trace her; he doubts that Chhotu @ Gautam Meena resident of Dayarampura has induced and enticed her away. etc. etc.. 3. On the above complaint, FIR No. 227/2011 was registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station Sadar Sanganer and investigation commenced. Matter is still under investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is major. She herself left her parental home and came in company of petitioner and got married with petitioner. He submits that she is having two children from petitioner and is living with petitioner as his wife. She is major and from her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. no offence is made out against the present petitioner, therefore impugned FIR may be quashed. 5. Investigating Officer Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, SI, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur (South) is present in person who submitted factual report of the matter which is taken on record. 6. Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali submits that as per Class 8th Marks-list, the date of birth of prosecutrix is 5th July, 1995 and date of incident is 7th October, 2011 as such her age was 16 years on the date of incident. Therefore, she was minor on the date of incident. Her consent has no value. He submits that from the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC is made out, therefore, this misc. petition may be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant Mr. Therefore, she was minor on the date of incident. Her consent has no value. He submits that from the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC is made out, therefore, this misc. petition may be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant Mr. C S Meena submits that prosecutrix is minor and no question arises for quashing FIR. He supported the submissions made by learned PP. and prayed that misc. petition may be dismissed. 8. Since prima facie age of prosecutrix according to her 8th Marks-list is 16 years only, therefore, her consent is in material in this matter and she herself in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that she is having one child from petitioner. Though the age of prosecutrix was disputed by the petitioner but that is subject matter of investigation and trial. 9. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 Hon'ble Supreme Court framed following 7 grounds for quashing FIR:- "105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. In the case in hand, as per prosecution, the prosecutrix was prima facie minor at the time of incident i.e. 07.10.2011, therefore, her consent is in material and she clearly stated in her statement that she gave birth to a child from petitioner, therefore, none of the aforesaid grounds is available for quashing FIR.The misc. petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******