JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been moved for getting the first information report No. 136/89, police station Saipau, district Dholpur quashed. The non-petitioner No. 2. Ramjilal is the complainant, who filed a complaint before the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur who sent the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to the police. The allegations in this complaint are that on 11.6.89, when Ramjilal was at his house then seven accused persons named in the complaint came armed with lathi, far and guns etc. and forcibly took away his wife and son. He further stated that some persons came and they also saw that the accused had taken away his wife and son. 2. In this complaint, the names of the wife and son have not been mentioned but then subsequently it has come out that the alleged wife is Kamla and her son aged about 3/4 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to FIR No. 90/89 of the police station Mania lodged by Rampati, mother of Kamla. In this report it has been mentioned that Kamla was married to Ram Niwas (brother of Ramjilal, complainant in this case), who died a couple of years after the marriage. Kamla had a son from this marriage. On 10th April, 1989 she was kidnapped from her mother's house by Ramjilal who came with others in a jeep armed with la this etc. On the basis of this first information report, a case was registered and Kamla was recovered and produced before the court. First she was sent to the Nari Niketen at Bharatpur and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur ordered on 1st May. 1989 that Kamla was a major and the could go where ever she wanted to go. Reference has also been made to her statement recorded tinder Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code wherein she has stated that she was first married to Ram Niwas and after his death she again married Layak Singh, who is the brother of the present petitioner. According to her, Ramjilal was her brother-in-law (Jeth) and not husband. Reference has also been made to her statement recorded tinder Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code wherein she has stated that she was first married to Ram Niwas and after his death she again married Layak Singh, who is the brother of the present petitioner. According to her, Ramjilal was her brother-in-law (Jeth) and not husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the facts go to reveal that Ramjilal has lodged the complaint only as a counter to the report lodged by Rampati, mother of Kamla and that when Kamla has been married to Layak Singh, according to her own statement, then there is no reason to proceed further in the first information report which has been lodged on the complaint of Ramjilal. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have referred to a decision in Neeraj Raj Garg v. State of Rajasthan ( 1988 (1) RLR 840 ). Referring to other decisions it was observed that the High Court can quash proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction when the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken on their face value. do not constitute the offence as alleged. In such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises. Under inherent powers, the High Court would not ordinarily see as to whether the offence in question is made out or not, as this is the function of the trial Magistrate. It has been contended that the story of Kamla that she got married to Ram Niwas is false and there is no such person as Ram Niwas and Kamla was married to Ramjilal and was his wife and was forcibly taken away by the accused petitioner and other accused. 5. The case diary of this case has not been produced in spite of opportunities granted for this purpose. The first information report lodged by Ramlal has to be considered in the back ground of previous criminal proceedings which had taken place in relation to the woman Kamla. As seen above, first the report has been lodged that she had been kidnapped by Ramjilal and she was recovered and sent to Nari Niketan and thereafter she was examined and she stated that she was married to Layak Singh after the death of Ram Niwas and she was residing with him. As seen above, first the report has been lodged that she had been kidnapped by Ramjilal and she was recovered and sent to Nari Niketan and thereafter she was examined and she stated that she was married to Layak Singh after the death of Ram Niwas and she was residing with him. Ramjilal in his complaint has not mentioned as to how Kamla was living with him after her release from care home. In the complaint even name of the wife has not been disclosed. Kamla is a major woman and she can decide as to what is good for her and where she wants to live. When she has not supported the complaint made by Ramjilal then it can be said that there is no legal evidence to proceed against the petitioner and it is a case wherein it can he said that whether the evidence would be sufficient to prove the offence or not does not require any discussion. No doubt this Court should not interfere with the proceeding at the stage of investigation but if the circumstances go to show that the continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court then this Court should not refrain from interfering merely on the ground that the case is at the investigation stage. At present it could be said that an offence can be made out prima facie on the allegation of Ramjilal but when statement of Kamla is looked into, it becomes a case of no legal evidence and further the proceedings in the case are not justified. 6. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and proceedings in First Information Report No. 136/89 of Police Station Saipau, district Dholpur are quashed.Petition accepted. *******