JUDGMENT 1. - Though this petition, the petitioner No. I who claims to be the husband of Smt. Archana Devi, daughter of Shri Arjun Singh, prays that the FIR No.345/1991 Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur which was registered on the complaint having been filed by the father of Archana Devil respondent No. 4under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by A.C.F.M. Bayana, be quashed. 2. When the case cane up before me on the last date it was directed that the learned Counsel shall keep Archana Devi present in the Court. Today Archana Devi is present and she has been identified by Shri Akhil Simlote Advocate for the petitioners. There is no reason to doubt the identity of Archana Devi and it can be said that Archana Devi is personally present in Court and on being questioned by the Court she gave out that she is a major and she had not been abducted or kidnapped much less by the petitioner and she had on her own accord gone with petitioner No. I and had married him. It will be proper to state here that on earlier occasion a Habeas Corpus petition was filed in this Court on behalf of petitioner No. 1 Rajesh Kumar on the ground that Archana was in illegal detention and that Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of by this Court under order dated 8th July, 1991 (D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 3182/ 1991). 1 have been one member of the bench which decided the aforesaid Habeas Corpus petition. It will appear from the perusal of the order in that case which has been annexed as Annexure-4 that Archana had been recovered and had been produced before us by the police. She was examined by us and we have observed that there appears to be no dispute that her date of birth is 30th December, 1968 and thus she is major. But at that point of time, she had made a statement that she wants to go to her father, and we had allowed her to go with her father. We have held that there was no illegal detention. 3. A complaint was lodged by Arjun Singh respondent No. 4 before the Magistrate wherein a case was set up that on 3rd August, 1991 when Arjun Singh, complainant, who is a teacher, was going to railway station all the accused persons followed him. We have held that there was no illegal detention. 3. A complaint was lodged by Arjun Singh respondent No. 4 before the Magistrate wherein a case was set up that on 3rd August, 1991 when Arjun Singh, complainant, who is a teacher, was going to railway station all the accused persons followed him. He left Archana at the railway station. The accused persons did not allow Archana to go to Agra to appear in due paper of examination and in the evening at 5.0X) p.m. when he went to the railway station to receive Archana, he saw that she was not in the train. He made search for her and in railway colony he came to know that the house of Rajesh was lying closed. Dbaramveer, son of the complainant went to the house of Rajesh and seeing Dbaramveer all the accused persons closed the door of room in which Archana was there, and said Archana was not there. In the morning again they went to the house of Rajesh and ladies said that Archana was not there. He searched for Archana but could not know about her as to where she was. It will, therefore, be clear from the perusal of the complaint which as said earlier was sent by the Magistrateunder section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bayana and an FIR was registered that the incident is said to have taken place on 3rd August, 1991 and the complaint was filed on 8th August, 1991 and 14th August, 1991. The delay in FIR has not been explained. That apart there is no dispute that Archana is a major girl, was major at the time of alleged incident and there is no material on record that during the investigation of the case as well as from the FIR on the basis of which it could be said that Archana by force was compelled by the accused persons to go to any place and as such abducted. It may also be stated on the basis of reply filed by the Investigating Officer that he has received a letter by post on 29th October, 1991 from Archana that she on her own freewill was living with petitioner No. 1. 4. It may also be stated on the basis of reply filed by the Investigating Officer that he has received a letter by post on 29th October, 1991 from Archana that she on her own freewill was living with petitioner No. 1. 4. It is very rare that this Court interferes at the investigation stage and only in case where from the FIR no cognizable case is made out, a case of interference is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in my opinion it is abuse of the entire process of law if the investigation is allowed to continue. Archana is a major and she has married with petitioner No. 1 on her own free will, no case to continue further investigation is made out. 5. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition, quash the FIR and consequently investigation, if any in FIR No. 345/1991 Police Station Bayana, District Bharatput.Petition allowed. *******