JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocate Mr.Bachani for the applicant, learned Advocate Mr.Thakkar for the respondent No.2-org. Complainant and learned APP Mr.Raval for the respondent - State. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court and has been verified by the learned Counsel representing. 2. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR being I-CR No.157 of 2012 with Deesa Rural Police Station alleging offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is a farther of the victim lodged a complaint with the allegations that the present petitioner has lured his daughter who is minor at the relevant time through voracity and enforcing her to flee away by giving her a false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that the victim was enticed with a view to coerce and make the relationship under the pretext of false promise of marriage. The allegations levelled by the complainant came to be registered vide aforesaid FIR. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, complainant is present in the Court. Victim alongwith petitioner are also present in the Court. The abductee submits to this Court that she has voluntarily married to the petitioner on attaining the majority and now out of the said wedlock, she has begotten child. She has further stated before the Court that she was not enticed by the petitioner; but she went on her own. 5. The org. complainant also remains present before the Court and submits that he is happy with the marriage life of his daughter and petitioner and he has no quarrel or dispute with them. He has also tendered the affidavit which is taken on record; relevant part of which is reproduced herein below. “1. I say that F.I.R. being CR No.I-157 OF 2012 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is filed by me against petitioners. 2. I state that after filing of the aforesaid F.I.R. an amicable settlement is arrived at between me and the petitioner. I state that I have no grievance against the petitioner and I further state that I have no objection if the aforesaid F.I.R. and other consequential proceedings thereto are quashed. 3. 2. I state that after filing of the aforesaid F.I.R. an amicable settlement is arrived at between me and the petitioner. I state that I have no grievance against the petitioner and I further state that I have no objection if the aforesaid F.I.R. and other consequential proceedings thereto are quashed. 3. I state that I have decided to enter into compromise by sorting out our differences and we have amicably resolved our disputes. I state that the alleged victim is my Daughter and accuse Nareshbhai Karamsibhai Chaudhary took her away and now they got married and are residing happily at their matrimonial house and also the relation between the accused and the me, now the father in law of accused have improved. So I state that I have no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner. 4. I state that as agreed, in view of settlement between the parties, I have no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.” 6. Since the parties have voluntarily compromised their dispute and they are not willing to go further; at the same time, the abductee herself states that she was not enticed to flee; but on her own volition and free will went with the petitioner as she was in love with the petitioner and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable by her father. She further stated that she married with the petitioner on her own free will without any influence being exercised by the accused. Thus, the statement clearly indicates that no offence as alleged under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC is made out. At this juncture, reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Mafat Lal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan [2022 Live Law (SC) 362]; facts of which are identical to the facts of the present case. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present applications as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present applications as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR and other consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 8. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being I-CR No.157 of 2012 with Deesa Rural Police Station alleging offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.