Judgment P.S.Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner herein has moved this court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and quashing of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, her father at Mirganj police station in the district of Gopalganj She has alleged that she was married to the respondent No.3 on 6th September, 1989 at Deoria Durga Mandir in the town of Deoria District-Deoria (U.P.) She, according to the allegations in the petition, left her parents house with the respondent No.3, married him, of her on own free will and lived with him until she learnt about the lodgement of a report at Mirganj police station by her father, who had alleged that she was a minor and that respondent No.3 with the help of some other persons had enticed her away from the lawful custody of respondent No.2. After notice, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have appeared. Respondent No.3 has reiterated that the petitioner, his daughter, is a minor, that respondent No.3 who had been engaged for some work for some time by the petitioner No.2 had enticed her away from the lawful custody of the respondent No.3 the and that he alongwith some other persons had committed the offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code Respondent No.3 has advanced a plea of marriage with the petitioner with her consent and alleged that she was a major at the time he and she together decided to marry. Accordingly, they applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. When called upon to state before this Court, the petitioner as stated that she is aged about 19 years and claimed that she has entered into a voluntary marriage with the respondent No. 3. She has also alleged that she apprehended danger to her life from her parents, other relatives and their friends. She has said that her father-in-law and three other persons had already been arrested by the police in connection with the case lodged by her father and that she herself and her husband were apprehending arrest. A further probe into the matter, however, has revealed and accordingly affidavits have been filed including one by the petitioner herself, in which she has admitted that there had been no marriage solemnised or registered as stated by her in the petition. A further probe into the matter, however, has revealed and accordingly affidavits have been filed including one by the petitioner herself, in which she has admitted that there had been no marriage solemnised or registered as stated by her in the petition. She has, however, reiterated and affirmed that she is a major aged about 19 years and that she has been apprehending danger to herself and to respondent No.3 and others. 2. This court directed for examination of the petitioner by the Civil Surgeon, Patna who was directed to report about the age of the petitioner. The report of the Civil Surgeon is on the record. The Civil Surgeon got the petitioner examined by a Medical Board. The report reveals that she was aged about 21 years on the date of the examination. 3. Petitioner has vacillated and varied her statement from time to time. She has, however, been consistent about her age above 18 years and the fact that she is not a major. She has, it appears with a little variation of acknowledged that she was a willing partner when respondent No.3 took her to Deoria and from thereto other places. The marriage, however, has not been proved. Facts show otherwise. The petitioner has herself in one of her affidavits admitted that there had not been any marriage solemnised or registered as yet. 4. The petitioner is present in Court. She has filed a letter stating that she has realised her mistake in leaving her parents house with respondent No. 3 arid now desires to stay with them. She has, however, stated that the case lodged by her father against respondent No.3 and others, if allowed to continue, shall continue the humilliation some son of stigma and persriation in the event of a charge-sheet submitted by the police not only of respondent No.3 but others also, who, according to the petitioner, acted because the petitioner herself desired leave the house of her parents and to stay with respondent No.2. 5. Ordinarily, we would have abstained from entering into the allegations made in the first information report and refrained from examining whether any offence is made out or not and rejected the application on the sole ground that the petitioner wrongly stated in the petition before this Court that she was legally married wife of respondent No.3, which statement she has subsequently changed. But we notice that she is a major and there is sufficient evidence on the record to hold so. She is free to leave her parents house and stay any where she liked. Why a girl of her age, who, it appears, either does not understand at all or if understands, does not care for the consequences, decided to leave the safe abode of her parents house, is a matter that cannot be easily answered. She has said in one breath that she was ill-treated by her parents and that she apprehended danger to her life when she decided to leave their house. At the Other breath, she has acknowledged that she has no other safer place to stay than the house of her parents. Respondent no. 2 (petitioners father), who has filed an affidavit stating that he would ensure that the petitioner would not be ill-treated in any manner and that she would be provided every comfort that a daugther and a girl of her age needed, and has emphatically denied the allegations of any ill treatment meted to the petitioner even by their relatives and friends including himself. 6. While we are aware of the law that as a free Citizen of this country and (she being. of age of majority) the petitioner is entitled to live at her will, we cannot ignore the fact that an unmarried girl of her age may not easily find a safe place at least no place safer than the house of her parents. She has expressed in the last letter dated 8.1.1990 submitted on her behalf before us that she has no further apprehension and that she would readily go with her father to stay with her parents. Her father has undertaken before us that he would ensure safety and provisions for petitioners well being, food, clothing etc. including expenses on her studies and marriage. He has undertaken before us that he shall not cause any physical or mental harm or torture to the petitioner and shall ensure that no other person similarly causes any physical or mental harm or torture to the petitioner. Respondent No, 3 who is also present in Court has undertaken not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner and not to visit the place of residence of the petitioner without prior permission of respondent No.2. 7. Respondent No, 3 who is also present in Court has undertaken not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner and not to visit the place of residence of the petitioner without prior permission of respondent No.2. 7. The First Information Report No. 184 of 1989 dated 4.8.1989 of the Mirganj police station which has given rise to G.R. No. 1181 of 1989 has proceeded on the basis that she petitioner was a minor, who had been removed from lawful custody of the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.3 and other accused persons. Since the very basis of the alleged offence is destroyed by the revealition of the fact that the petitioner is a major and that, as stated by her before this Court, that she had voluntarily left her parents house, it can be safely concluded that any criminal proceeding instituted on the basis of the said report shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is well settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute an offence, of the criminal proceeding instituted on the basis of the said F.I.R., should be quashed. A court can legitimately conclude that in the absence of any definite accusation any proceeding in the instant case, shall be liable to be quashed. See (State of U.P. through C.B.I.S.P. (E) Lucknow also R.K. Srivastava and others. 8. As a result of our discussion above, we hereby order: That the petitioner may go with the respondent No.2 shall safely take her to her parents house and keep her in safety, subject to the undertaking as recorded above and shall bestow as much care and attention as is expected of a father to a daughter. Respondent No.3 shall not interfere and he is accordingly directed to keep away from the petitioner and her place of residence subject to the undertaking and conditions as aforementioned; The first information report giving rise. to Mirganj police station case No. 184 of 1989 (G.R. No. 1181 of 1989) is quashed. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, however, is directed to ensure a report about the well being and safety of the petitioner every fort night and keep a. record thereof until such time the petitioner is legally married and thus removed legally from respondent No.2. 9. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, however, is directed to ensure a report about the well being and safety of the petitioner every fort night and keep a. record thereof until such time the petitioner is legally married and thus removed legally from respondent No.2. 9. With the direction as above, this application is disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Counsel for the State for communication to the District Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj.