By the Court.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 118 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao (Annexure 1).

2. Short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in deference to order dated 8.8.2016. Order dated 8.8.2016 reads as under :

“1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Case Crime No. 118/2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.Bangarmau, district Unnao (Annexure-1).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No. 1 willingly got married to petitioner No. 2. The marriage has not been accepted by respondent No. 4, therefore, the petitioners were being tormented. The petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 9791(M/B) of 2016 Smt. Basanti and another v. State of U.P. and others, to seek protection. Order in that regard has been placed on record as Annexure-3 dated 5.5.2016.

3. It has been pleaded that in abuse of process of the law and process of the Court, impugned proceedings have been initiated. In the course of investigation, petitioner No. 1 has been found to be nineteen years as per her medical examination. In the statement given by petitioner No. 1 under Section 164 CrPC (Annexure-5), it has been made evident that petitioner No. 1 was not kidnapped; rather got married to the accused.

4. It has been pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is squarely covered by judgment dated 23.7.2015, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3519(M/B) of 2015 Shaheen Parveen and another v. State of U.P. and others.

5. In Shaheen Parveen’s case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held :

“6. Petitioner No. 2 is accused of committing an offence under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code inheres that whoever kidnaps any person from lawful guardianship shall be punished in terms of sentence provided in the provision.

8. “Kidnapping from lawful guardianship” has been defined under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision when extracted reads as under :

“Whoever takes or entices any minor under *[sixteen] years of age if a male, or under **[eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation : The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception : This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.”

9. Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code inheres that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with a sentence, as provided in the provision.

10. At the time of considering whether on admitting the allegations made in the F.I.R., offence has been committed or not, the ingredients of the offence are required to be considered, in context of the evidence collected during the course of investigation.

11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Court has minutely examined the facts that have emerged on investigation of the case.

14. The Investigating Agency is concluding that at the point in time when the victim left in the company of the accused, she was a few months less than 18 years, which is the relevant age mentioned in Section 361 of