K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) BY the instant revisional application under section 401, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-accused has prayed the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Sessions Tria1 Case No. XVIII (4) of 1991 arising out of Jagatballavpur P. S. Case No. 4 of 1990 dated 28. 1. 90 and the order dated 24. 7. 91 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, First Court, Howrah therein framing charges against him (petitioner-accused) under section 363/366, Indian Penal Code, on the grounds set forth therein. ( 2 ) THE relevant case was registered by the police upon receipt of a purported written complaint from the informant Jamunabala Samanta on 28. 1. 90 on the allegation that her minor daughter Jayanti Samanta has been kidnapped by the petitioner-accused from her lawful guardianship and had married her. The police upon investigation submitted charge sheet in the matter and the case had eventually been committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge upon hearing both sides and upon consideration of the case diary felt that there is prima facie material against the accused-petitioner for offence punishable under sections 363/ 366, I. P. C. and had accordingly framed charge against him thereunder by his impugned order dated 24. 7. 91. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the relevant proceedings and the order so passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the petitioner-accused has moved this Court in Revision. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-accused has presented certain materials before the Court to indicate that the alleged victim girl Jayanti Samanta was neither a minor nor was she kidnapped by him for compelling her to marry him against her will. She had herself married him of her own with the approval of her mother Jamuna Samanta. That being so, he could not be proceeded against for alleged offence punishable under sections 363/366 of the Code. The petitioner has presented the xerox copies of an Affidavit affirmed by Jamuna Samanta, the mother of the alleged victim girl Jayanti Samanta before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Howrah on 7. 2. 90, the extract of a voter list, the depositions of the said Jamuna Samanta and Jayanti Samanta since renamed as Salehar Begum on her marriage with the petitioner-accused in support of his said contention. 2. 90, the extract of a voter list, the depositions of the said Jamuna Samanta and Jayanti Samanta since renamed as Salehar Begum on her marriage with the petitioner-accused in support of his said contention. The aforesaid material could very well be translated into relevant piece of evidence, and in view of the decision of this Court in N. C. Nagpal, 1979 (2) CHN 198, such materials which can be translated into relevant piece of evidence could be considered by the High Court while exercising in its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code for considering whether a criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed or not. ( 5 ) IT would pretty clearly appear from the aforesaid affidavit of Jamuna Samanta dated 7. 2. 90 that her daughter Jayanti was aged about 21 years at that time. In her evidence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah on 18. 4. 91 in Case No. 808c/92 she has further affirmed on oath that her daughter Jayanti was then aged about 23 years. So also stated by, Jayanti (subsequently renamed as Salehar Begum on her marriage with the petitioner Sk. Niamat Ali) in her evidence before the said Court in the aforesaid case on 21. 2. 91 that she was then aged about 22 years. The extract of the corrected Voters' List for 1989 in respect of the relevant Bidhan Sabha Constituency would as well seem to indicate that Jayanti was then aged about 18 years. As against that there seems to be no material on record to indicate that she was below 18 years of age when the alleged occurrence had allegedly taken place in January 1990. It would also seem significant and observable to note that no medical examination and/or ossification test was carried by the Investigating-Agency for determination of the age of the alleged victim girl, as frankly conceded by the learned Advocate of the opposite party-State. In the absence of any convincing material on record it would be difficult to discuss the aforesaid materials presented by the petitioner which could very well be considered by this Court in terms of the aforesaid decision in N. C. Nagpal's case. In the absence of any convincing material on record it would be difficult to discuss the aforesaid materials presented by the petitioner which could very well be considered by this Court in terms of the aforesaid decision in N. C. Nagpal's case. The materials on record being, for they are it would be difficult to hold prima facie that the alleged victim girl Jayanti Samanta was below 18 years of age when the alleged occurrence had allegedly taken place in January 1990. The principal ingredient for an; alleged offence punishable under section 363, I. P. C. clearly appears to be wanting in the relevant case. ( 6 ) AND, in order to make out an offence punishable under section 366, I. P. C. there has to be material to indicate that kidnapping and abducting of any woman has been made with the intend that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will It would pretty clearly appear from the xerox copies of the aforesaid affidavit of Jamuna Samanta that her daughter Jayanti had proposed to marry the petitioner-accused Sk. Niamat Ali and she had given full consent thereto and was willing in the said marriage. So also stated by her in her evidence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah in the aforesaid case on 18. 4. 91. She had clearly affirmed therein on oath that her daughter Jayanti had married Sk. Niamat Ali in the middle of Pous last year and she herself had arranged the said marriage. The alleged victim girl Jayanti has as well asserted on oath before the said learned Magistrate on 21. 2. 91 in the aforesaid case that she had married the petitioner accused on 2. 1. 90 at Nakhoda Masjid, Calcutta according to Muslim Rites and she knew her husband from before the marriage for about a year. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, which could very well be translated into relevant piece of evidence it would be difficult to hold prima facie that she had been kidnapped by the petitioner-accused with the intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that it would be compelled to marry him against her will. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, which could very well be translated into relevant piece of evidence it would be difficult to hold prima facie that she had been kidnapped by the petitioner-accused with the intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that it would be compelled to marry him against her will. The material ingredient for an alleged offence punishable under section 366, I. P. C. as well clearly appears to be miserably wanting in the relevant case. ( 7 ) AS held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Schindhia and Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 709 , the legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is material to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the special features indicated above the relevant proceedings is clearly liable to be quashed. In view of the discussions above, the instant revisional application succeeds. The relevant proceedings before the court below stands quashed as such. The petitioner-accused be discharged from his Bail Bond, if on bail. Revisional application allowed. .