ORDER : A.G. URAIZEE, J. Rule. Mr. N.J. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Digant Popat, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“the Code” for short) is preferred to quash and set aside the FIR being I - C.R No. 66 of 2012 registered with Thasra Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petition is filed jointly by the applicant No. 1 Patel Chiragkumar @ Daxesh Dasharathlal and applicant No. 2 Sejalben Chiragbhai Patel but later on the applicant No. 2 Sejalben Chiragbhai Patel filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 8.5.2014 to withdrawn herself from the present petition. 4. I have heard Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant No. 1, Mr. Romil L. Kodekar, learned advocate for the applicant No. 2, Mr. N.J Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Digant M. Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. 5. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant No. 1 submits that the applicant No. 2 had left her parental home on her own voluntarily. Relying upon the birth certificate of the applicant No. 2, he submits that the marriage between the applicants No. 1 and 2 was solemnised on 16.10.2012 after the applicant No. 2 attained majority. He further submits that the applicant No. 2 herself had written to the police authorities to make impartial investigation as she had left with the applicant No. 1 voluntarily on her own volition. He, therefore, urges that the complaint may be quashed. 6. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate for the applicant No. 2 has made a submissions in terms of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the applicant No. 2. 7. Mr. Digant Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3-original complainant submits that the applicant No. 2 was minor when she was removed from the guardianship of the respondent No. 3. 6. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate for the applicant No. 2 has made a submissions in terms of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the applicant No. 2. 7. Mr. Digant Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3-original complainant submits that the applicant No. 2 was minor when she was removed from the guardianship of the respondent No. 3. He, therefore, submits that the subsequent marriage of applicant No. 2 with applicant No. 1 after attaining majority is of no consequence and it would not in any way mitigate the offence committed by the applicant No. 1. He submits that the applicant No. 1 is a head-strong person and is facing many criminal cases and is threatening the applicant No. 2, and therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant No. 1, the present petition may be dismissed. 8. Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that, because of the interim relief granted by this Court, no progress could be made in the investigation by the police authorities. He further submits that the applicant No. 2 has given a statement before the police that she was induced by applicant No. 1 to elope on false promises, and after the marriage she was subjected to ill-treatment. He, therefore, submits that the petition may be dismissed. 9. As noted above, the petition is filed jointly by the applicants No. 1 and 2 but thereafter the applicant No. 2 had withdrawn herself from the petition. The basis of the present petition as can be seen from the averments made in the petition that the applicant No. 2 had left parental home voluntarily which fact is supported by the communication and the declaration of the applicant No. 2, and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant No. 1 had kidnapped the applicant No. 2. After the withdrawal of the applicant No. 2 from the petition, the scenario is completely changed. She has taken a stand before the police that she was in fact lured by the applicant No. 1, eloped with him on false promises. It further appears that thereafter, according to her, she was physically ill-treated and is forced to leave the company of the applicant No. 1. Under the circumstances, the whole basis of the petition to quash the FIR does not survive after the withdrawal of the applicant No. 2 from the petition. It further appears that thereafter, according to her, she was physically ill-treated and is forced to leave the company of the applicant No. 1. Under the circumstances, the whole basis of the petition to quash the FIR does not survive after the withdrawal of the applicant No. 2 from the petition. The marriage between both the applicants and the birth of a male child, in my opinion, would not at this stage make any difference for quashing the FIR which is lodged by respondent No. 3 against the applicant No. 1 alone. The stand of the applicant No. 2 that she was lured by applicant No. 1 to elope now has become a subject matter of investigation, and unless the investigation progresses at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant No. 2 had eloped with applicant No. 1 voluntarily or not. The another aspect which requires to be considered is that, at the time of elopement, admittedly, the applicant No. 2 was minor, and therefore, even if, for a moment, it is assumed that the applicant No. 2 had eloped with the applicant No. 1 on her own volition, the subsequent marriage on her attaining majority would not make any difference so far as the offence of kidnapping as envisaged under the Indian Penal Code is concerned. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition does not warrant any indulgence on the part of this Court and deserves to be dismissed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Ad-interim injunction granted earlier in terms of para 14(B) is vacated. Rule is discharged. 11. At this stage, Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant No. 1 submits that since filing of the petition the applicant No. 1 is protected and therefore the protection may be continued. The submission for continuation of protection for indefinite period cannot be considered but the protection can be extended till the applicant approaches the competent authority for obtaining the order of bail from the competent court. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the police authorities are directed not to take coercive steps against the applicant No. 1 for a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order within which period he may approach the competent authority for obtaining the order of bail from the competent court.