ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Rajsamand in Criminal Revision No.08/2023, which in turn upheld the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, Rajsamand. The trial court had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted F.R. No. 37/2011 in FIR No. 116/2011 at Police Station Rajnagar, Rajsamand. 2. Relevant facts are that the petitioner submitted a police complaint stating his daughter, major by age, was missing and after searching by the family she remained untraceable. Based on this information, FIR was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a negative report in the matter. The protest petition of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 19.12.2022, and the final report was accepted. 3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid narrative as pleaded in the petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. At the very outset, I am constrained to observe that given the sheer lapse of time between the alleged occurrence and the actions sought to be taken by the petitioner as of today, i.e., after a gap of 13 years, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as the evidence has completely obliterated over the years. 5. Furthermore, in view of the statement of the petitioner’s daughter recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in which she stated that she had gone with the alleged accused of her own volition, the self-serving allegations of the petitioner lack any merit. 6. Moreover, the same was investigated by the agency, and it was found that the petitioner’s daughter had indeed gone on her own volition, resulting in the filing of the negative final report, which was accepted by the learned Trial Court observing that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not unjustified or erroneous in any way. The trial court while passing the impugned order found that the complainant was instructed to give a confirmed statement, but the complainant sought another opportunity which was denied stating that the complainant cannot be given an opportunity indefinitely. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence, the complainant’s opportunity was terminated and the FR was accepted. 8. The trial court while passing the impugned order found that the complainant was instructed to give a confirmed statement, but the complainant sought another opportunity which was denied stating that the complainant cannot be given an opportunity indefinitely. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence, the complainant’s opportunity was terminated and the FR was accepted. 8. Furthermore, having perused the reasoning rendered by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the protest petition, I am of the view that the same does not require any interference and was therefore rightly upheld by the Sessions Court. 9. In the overall premise, the petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.