JUDGMENT : 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants are original accused who have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report registered as CR No.I-285 of 2010 with the Mehsana City Police Station. 2. The facts are as under: 2.1. The respondent no.2 is original complainant and father of original accused no.3, applicant no.1 Mahejabinbanu. The respondent no.2, complainant filed the First Information Report before the Police Station, Mehsana City under Sections 363, 366, 376, 380, 381 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant who is father of the applicant no.1 herein that his daughter who is aged 18 years was taken away from his legal guardianship by the accused no.1, applicant no.2 herein. The First Information Report further goes to state that while the complainant came at home on 09/08/2010 in the evening, his daughter was found missing. It was subsequently noticed by one of his neighbours Mahammed Umar Mahammed Yusuf Ansari that the applicant no.1, daughter of the original complainant was seen in the company of applicant no.2, accused no.1 in Auto-Rickshaw. The allegations in the complaint further go to state that the applicant no.2, accused no.1 had taken his daughter against her will and married her on 20/09/2010. According to the complainant's say, the said act was liable to be punished under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, so invoked by the complainant, respondent no.2. 3. Mr. M. T. Saiyed, learned advocate for the applicants has drawn my attention to the order dated 13/06/2013 passed by this Court while admitting the application. The said order reads as under: “RULE returnable on 8/7/2013. Ms. Archana Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent State. Looking to the averments made on oath in this petition with regard to age of the girl and the contents of the FIR, and that out of the wedlock a child is born, let there be stay of further proceedings in the matter being C.R. No: I-285/2010 registered with Mahesana City Police Station, till the returnable date. Direct service permitted.” 4. Direct service permitted.” 4. What is apparent on reading the First Information Report is that, looking to the allegations made therein, it is the case of the complainant, respondent no.2 herein that marriage of the applicant no.1, daughter of respondent no.2 with the applicant no.2 took place on 20/09/2010 on which date, even according to the contents of the First Information Report, she was aged 18 years. Mr. M. T. Saiyed, learned advocate, therefore, contended that it is apparent from the marriage agreement-cum-declaration (Annexure-B) that the applicant no.1, the complainant's daughter was major, aged 20 years and with her free will and consent married the accused no.1, applicant no.2 herein. Nikahnama is also produced along with the memo of the application. 5. Mr. Nandish Thackar, learned advocate has appeared for the original complainant. He is not in a position to dispute the fact, apart from the complaint itself, that the complainant's daughter, the applicant no.1 was 18 years of age. She was adult and, therefore, was competent to marry on her free will. 6. No one is present on behalf of the respondent no.1-State. 7. Having considered the averments in the First Information Report and looking to the fact that both the accused no.1, applicant no.2 herein and the accused no.3, applicant no.1 herein were adult/major, they were at their free will to enter into matrimonial relationship. Reading of the Nikahnama together with the marriage agreement-cum-declaration singed by both the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2, the respective accused, it is evident that two adults at their own free will and consent had married without any coercion from the accused no.1, applicant no.2 herein. It is apt therefore even to reproduce the observations of this Court which Mr.M. T. Saiyed, learned advocate has relied upon in the case in Criminal Misc. Application No.1890 of 2010. In that case, the Court has observed as under: “..... unfailingly it emerges that the complainant - father of the girl - petitioner No.2 is extremely perturbed and highly agitated on account of her marriage with the person belongs to different religion and that too against wish of the father. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 is a major aged about 24 years. Her birth certificate is produced on record. Under the circumstances, she had free choice to enter into a contract of marriage with any other person who is of marriageable age. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 is a major aged about 24 years. Her birth certificate is produced on record. Under the circumstances, she had free choice to enter into a contract of marriage with any other person who is of marriageable age. Even the father could not objected to her action of her daughter. Obviously, because the father could not lodge a complaint of kidnapping and abduction since the girl was major and voluntarily left the house at own volition, father found a different, if not so a novel method to involve police agency in trying to bring back custody of the girl, he filed present complaint making wild allegations against his daughter - petitioner No.3 of having stolen the valuable property to join with her prospective husband who is also alleged to have abetted commission of such offence.” 8. As far as invoking of other provisions of the Indian Penal Code namely Section 380 and Section 381 are concerned, admittedly the father, the complainant herein has filed the said complaint in a state of mind which is been disturbed as a result of his daughter entering into the matrimonial relationship possibly against his own liking. It is in such a state of mind that the father, the respondent no.2, the complainant herein has filed the First Information Report. 9. Even looking to the order of this Court while admitting the application wherein the Court has specifically recorded that, looking to the age of the girl and the contents of the First Information Report coupled with the fact that a child has been born out of the wedlock, the same is an additional persuasive ground by this Court to quash the First Information Report. 10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The First Information Report being CR No.I-285 of 2010 registered with the Mehsana City Police Station and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.