ORDER : Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 508/2014 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 368 and 120-B Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix and FIR was registered on 10.7.2014. Thereafter present FIR was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped/abducted by some unknown persons. Thereafter effort was made to trace the prosecutrix. A notice was put up by the police at prominent places that the prosecutrix aged about 16-17 years was travelling by train etc. from place to place by changing her name and projecting that she was a police official. It was further published that the prosecutrix was making friends while travelling by train. Thereafter prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.3.2016. Prosecutrix had not named the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as petitioner is concerned as per the prosecutrix she had reached Gangapur City Railway Station and had stayed in the house of the petitioner for one night. Prosecutrix made a phone call from the mobile phone of the petitioner to Kusum stating that she was in need of money. Prosecutrix was informed by Kusum and Jeevan that they would make necessary arrangements. Thereafter police called the petitioner on his mobile phone and instructed him to stop the prosecutrix at the spot. However, petitioner got nervous and left the prosecutrix at Gangapur City Railway Station and she took a train for Indore. There is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence of rape. Petitioner was not known to the prosecutrix and as per prosecution story petitioner had merely allowed her to stay in his house for one night. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that charge has been presented against 17 persons. So far as petitioner is concerned, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has submitted that criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that charge has been presented against 17 persons. So far as petitioner is concerned, proceedings against him were initiated under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has submitted that criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. In the present case, prosecutrix had gone missing and FIR in question was got registered by her father. After the recovery of the prosecutrix, her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.3.2014. So far as petitioner is concerned, prosecutrix has alleged that on getting the chance she had left the house of Mukesh and had reached the Railway Station. In the train, she had met the petitioner and had got down with him at Gangapur City. She had requested the petitioner to provide her shelter for one night. Petitioner allowed her to stay in his house and had served her food. On the next day she had talked from mobile phone of the petitioner to Kusum and had told her that she was in need of money. She was assured by Kusum and Jeevan that they would make the necessary arrangements. Then the petitioner received a mobile call on his phone from the police who had instructed him to stop her at his residence. However, petitioner got scared that he might get involved in an offence and immediately left her at Gangapur City Railway Station, from where she took the train for Indore. Thereafter she was apprehended by the police. 5. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it is evident that she has not named the petitioner but it is evident that she had made a phone call from the mobile phone of the petitioner to Kusum. It was also established that the petitioner had received a phone call from the police with a direction to stop the prosecutrix at his residence. It appears that the petitioner got scared and left the prosecutrix at the Railway Station. From the statement of the prosecutrix it cannot be said that there was any involvement of the petitioner in the crime and the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the petitioner of commission of offence of rape by him. Petitioner had merely provided shelter to the prosecutrix for one night. Petitioner was not known to the prosecutrix. 6. From the statement of the prosecutrix it cannot be said that there was any involvement of the petitioner in the crime and the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the petitioner of commission of offence of rape by him. Petitioner had merely provided shelter to the prosecutrix for one night. Petitioner was not known to the prosecutrix. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, continuation of criminal proceedings in FIR No. 508/2014 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 508/2014 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. Petition allowed.