JUDGMENT : S.P. SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. A first information report was lodged on 9-3-91 in the police station Kotwali Etawah by Hari Prasad wherein Raj Kishore, son of Shiv Raj Singh, R.K. Singh alias Prithvi son of Seva Singh, Rajesh Chaubey alias Bare Lal, son of Radhey Shyam and Ram Sewak Tripathi were accused of having committed offences envisaged under sections 366/368/364, IPC. The allegations made in the FIR were, that accused had kidnapped the Petitioner from lawful guardianship seducing her to compel her marriage and were wrongfully keeping her in confinement. While the investigation proceedings started on the basis of the aforesaid FIR were in progress, the present writ petition was filed on 3-4-91 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid FIR and a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take the Petitioner in their custody. The Petitioner further prayed for the issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to get her medically examined or obtain any statement from her u/s 161 or 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition an application was filed by Hari Prasad Dwivedi praying for his impleadment as an opposite party in the writ petition and for permission to contest the writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit. Hari Prasad filed a counter-affidavit and in reply thereto the Petitioner has filed her rejoinder affidavit. In the circumstances of the case there is no justification for granting the application for impleadment. However taking into consideration the nature of the controversy involved in the case, we have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the proposed opposite party in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the rules of this Court. 3. The allegations made in the FIR a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, are against the four accused persons viz Raj Kishore, R.K. Singh alias Prithvi, Rajesh Chaubey alias Bare Lal and Ram Sewak, none of whom have joined the Petitioner in this writ petition. In this view of the matter a preliminary objection has been raised challenging the maintainability of the writ petition so far as the relief in regard to the quashing of the first information report in question is concerned. 4. In this view of the matter a preliminary objection has been raised challenging the maintainability of the writ petition so far as the relief in regard to the quashing of the first information report in question is concerned. 4. Article 226 of the Constitution of India in terms does not describe the class of persons entitled to apply there under but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under the aforesaid provision that the relief sought for must be one to enforce a legal right. The legal right that can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the Petitioner, the infraction of which right, may necessitate approaching this Court for relief. This legal position stands amply clarified by the apex court in its decision in the case of The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1044 . 5. In the present case, the Petitioner is not to face any trial for having committed any offence alleged in the FIR in question. Obviously, therefore, the writ petition at her instance seeking the quashing of the FIR dated 9-3-91 a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, cannot be held to be maintainable and no relief can be granted in this regard in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, in appropriate cases, interference by this Court may be called for to prevent unwarranted harassment to an individual, when, on the materials on the record no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report, as in that case, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation which, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, is carried on for the purposes of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is alleged to have been committed. 7. The provision contained in Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for examination of witnesses by police while the provisions contained in Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the recording of voluntary confession and statement. 7. The provision contained in Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for examination of witnesses by police while the provisions contained in Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the recording of voluntary confession and statement. As provided u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure a person can be interrogated by an officer envisaged therein in the course of investigation and the person so interrogated is bound under the law to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer except those which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. 8. In the present case, we find that the Petitioner was an adult, being over 18 years of age, at the relevant time. The certificate issued by the Registrar, Hindu Marriages dated 13-3-91 a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition discloses that the marriage of Raj Kishore, one of the accused in the FIR in Question, had been solemnized with the Petitioner on 12-2-91 which was duly registered at the office of Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Ghaziabad under the Hindu Marriage Registration Rule, 1973. Further, the Petitioner has filed a certified copy of her statement recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV Etawah on 29-7-91 u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. A perusal of the aforesaid statement shows that the Petitioner had left her house voluntarily of her own will and had married Raj Kishore Singh. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, it is apparent that no case had been made out under sections 364/366/368, IPC so as to justify any investigation contemplated under the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, after her own statement recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah referred to above, showing that she had willingly accompanied the accused person, the interrogation of the Petitioner, even if permitted, can not add strength to the prosecution. 10. We are of the view that the interrogation of the Petitioner, now, will not only add to her harassment but will be without any authority of law. 10. We are of the view that the interrogation of the Petitioner, now, will not only add to her harassment but will be without any authority of law. The impugned action of the opposite parties is thus, bound to result in grave injustice to the Petitioner and being contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the present one is a fit case where interference by this Court is called for. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and our conclusion indicated above, allowing the writ petition in part, we issue a direction to the opposite parties to refrain from interrogating the Petitioner during the investigation proceeding in pursuance of the FIR dated 9-3-91 giving rise to crime No. 121 of 1991 under sections 364/366/368, IPC police station Kotwali District Etawah. 12. The writ petition is, however, dismissed so far as the rest of the relief’s claimed therein are concerned. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.