JUDGMENT RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. 1. THESE are three applications under Section 482 Cr PC 2. IT appears that one girl Leelawati disappeared. The girl's father Vishwanath says that she was minor and she was kidnapped by some persons including Maqbool Alam and Manzoor Alam. He also lodged First Information Report. The case of Maqbool Alam and Manzoor Alam is that the girl was major. She embraeed Islam and married Manzoor Alam. There is also one Mohd. Zameer Alam, who says that he is not in any way involved in the matter and his name was not in the First Information Report. 3. POLICE started investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted before the Court. 4. WHEN the case was under investigation, Mohd. Zameer Alam came to this Court under Section 482 Cr PC which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 573 of 1986 and he prayed that the FIR be quashed and proceedings of investigation be stayed. Under Section 482 Cr PC investigation cannot be interfered with as held by seven Judges Bench in the case of Ram Lai Yadav, Crl. Misc. Application No. 5939 of 1988, decided on 1st February 1989. Hence, Crl. Misc. Application No. 573 of 1986 has to be dismissed. During the course of Investigation and proceedings in the court below, statement of the girl has been recorded under Section 164 Cr PC. The father of the girl Vishwanath is not satisfied with that statement as it goes in favour of Manzoor Alam and Maqool Alam. He complained that the Investigating Officer has been partial towards Manzoor Alam and Maqbool Alam. So he prays that statement under Section 164 Cr PC be quashed and the Investigating Officer be changed. It is not for this Court to interfere with the investigation under Section 482 Cr PC as has been pointed out earlier. The statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, there is no question of quashing it. When it is used by some court, the applicant may show there that the statement is not correct. So there is no necessity of quashing the statement. Investigation has to be made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has no power to change the Investigating Officer under its inherent powers. So this application No. 599 of 1986, filed by the father of the girl, is also to be dismissed. 5. So there is no necessity of quashing the statement. Investigation has to be made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has no power to change the Investigating Officer under its inherent powers. So this application No. 599 of 1986, filed by the father of the girl, is also to be dismissed. 5. THEN there is another application under Section 482 Cr PC as Crl. Misc. Case No. 785 of 1986. Through this application Manzoor Alam and Maqbool Alam pray that Crl. Misc. Case No. 1753 of 86 pending against them under Sections 363, 366 and 368 IPC relating to Crime No. 564 of 1985 be quashed. As pointed out earlier, they say that the girl is major and she was not kidnapped; rather she married Manzoor Alam of her own free will. 6. EARLIER, girl's father filed a Habeas Corpus Petition for production of the girl and setting her free saying that she was in illegal detention. That Habeas Corpus petition was 4025 of 1986. Parties filed their affidavits and documents in that case. This court held that there appears to be no doubt that the date of birth of the girl is 15-8-1965 i.e. on the date of alleged abduction, she was 19 years of age. This is a categorical finding. In that Habeas Corpus petition the girl appeared before the court and said that she had married Manzoor Alam. She also filed a complaint against her father, wherein she said that she married Manzoor Alam of her own free will and the report lodged by her father was false and she was not kidnapped. She also supported this theory in the statement under Section 164 Cr PC. The finding given in Habeas Corpus petition regarding age of the girl appears to be binding in subsequent proceedings. It was given after allowing the parties concerned to produce their documents and giving them fair opportunity of filing affidavits. At that time, none of the parties asked for giving any oral evidence and they did not ask for cross-examining any person who filed affidavit. In case of Chandu Ram 1974, Criminal Law Journal, 1505 it was said that although in a Habeas Corpus petition matter is ordinarily decided on affidavits and documents, there is nothing in law to restrict the power of High Court to take oral evidence. In case of Chandu Ram 1974, Criminal Law Journal, 1505 it was said that although in a Habeas Corpus petition matter is ordinarily decided on affidavits and documents, there is nothing in law to restrict the power of High Court to take oral evidence. So if any party insisted for giving oral evidence, the High Court could have taken it if found necessary. The High Court could also alloy cross examination of deponent of the affidavit as held in the case of Barium Chemicals 1967 .Supreme Court 295. The decision in a Writ Petition was held binding on parties in a subsequent suit in the case of Union of India, 1968 Supreme Court, 1370 and Gulab Chand Chotey Lal 1965 Supreme Court, 1153. There the principle of finality of decision after full contest and after affording fair opportunities to the parties to prove their case was accepted. The same principle should apply here and the finding given in Habeas Corpus petition regarding age should be taken to be final when the Court has not specifically said that it will not be binding on the parties, as was said in the case of Madhubala 1982 Supreme Court, 938 regarding some controvercial points. 7. THUS when the finding that Leelawati was major on the date of alleged offence, has become final and Leelawati is repeatedly saying in all proceedings that she was not kidnapped and she married Manzoor Alam of her own free will, it will be abuse of process of the court if prosecution against these two persons is still allowed to continue inspite of all these litigations. If it is once allowed to continue, it will not end within a short period and it will go from trial to appeal and then to revision. So, it appears proper to quash the proceedings of the court below. 8. CRIL. Misc. Case No. 599 of 1986 and 573 of 1986 filed respectively by Vishwanath Misra and Mohd. Zamer Alam are dismissed. The application under Section 482 Cr PC bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 785 of 1986 is allowed and Crl. Misc. Case No. 1753 of 1986 under Sec. 363, 366 and 368 IPC, Crime No. 564 of 1985 of P. S. Mahanagar, Lucknow, pending in the court or Addl. C.J.M. Lucknow is quashed so far as Maqbool Alam and Manzoor Alam are concerned.