Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners, Shankar Nath and Smt. Maya Devi with a prayer to quash FIR No. 73/95, registered at Police Station, Sapotara, under section 366 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) NORMALLY this court is reluctant to exercise extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P. C at the state of investigation as this Court is aware that investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government but there are some salient facts in the case necessitating to exercise inherent powers under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, Maya Devi, is an adult woman. She has stated her age as 20 years before this Court, while the informant Sampat gave her age as 22 years. Crime No. 73/95, under Sec. 366, Indian Panel Code was registered at Police Station, Sapotara on the report of one Sampat Sb Durjan, the husband of Smt. Maya. In the report he complained that his wife Smt. Maya was abducted by Shankar Nath and she had gone with him wearing silver and gold ornaments. The investigation is still pending and the statement of Smt. Maya Devi under Sec. 164 Criminal Procedure Code could not be recorded for one reason or the other. In the petition before this Court the petitioners have alleged that the petitioner Maya Devi had appeared before the Magistrate to give her statement, but the same was not recorded on the application of the informant. Thereafter, she was allowed to go to village Piplai with petitioner Shankar Nath under police protection. However, the informant Sampat with his associates who were armed with weapons, tried to take away forcibly Smt. Maya Devi, but, on account of Police Protection they could not succeed and a complaint was filed by the petitioner to the S. D. M. which was sent for investigation to Police Station, Bamanwas. After investigation the police submitted a complaint under section 107/116 (3) Criminal Procedure Code against Sampat informant and 7 other persons to bound down for maintaining peace and the magistrate has taken cognizances on the said complaint. ( 4 ) AS Smt. Maya Devi was present in Court, her statement was recorded in order to know her wishes. After investigation the police submitted a complaint under section 107/116 (3) Criminal Procedure Code against Sampat informant and 7 other persons to bound down for maintaining peace and the magistrate has taken cognizances on the said complaint. ( 4 ) AS Smt. Maya Devi was present in Court, her statement was recorded in order to know her wishes. In her statement recorded by this Court she has stated that her husband used to take liquor and beat her, she was turned out of the house three years ago and for the last 1-1/2 years she was living with petitioner Shankar Nath and she was carrying pregnancy of 5-6 months from his co-habitation. She also stated that she had Natha marriage with Shankar Nath and she wanted to live with him and she was living with him voluntarily and there was no pressure from any persons. I was satisfied from her statement she was giving a voluntary statement and she was also carrying a pregnancy of 5-6 months. In the above circumstances, the question before me is whether this Court should quash the investigation pending against the petitioner. It is not disputed before me that investigation can be quashed by this court, though in exceptional circumstances. ( 5 ) IN State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court has examined the scope of inherent powers of the High Court to interfere with the investigation of an offence by the police and laid down the following rule: The sum and substance of the above deliberation results to a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the Police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the Police how that investigation is to be conducted. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the Police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the Police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. T ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances narrated above, I feel that the present matter should not be left to the mercy of the police as it cannot be disputed that Smt. Maya has voluntarily gone with the petitioner Shankar Nath and she has been living with him as his wife since long. In peculiar circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to quash the investigation of the case to secure the ends of justice. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed and investigation of Criminal Case N. J. No. 73/ 95, Police Station, Sapotara, is hereby quashed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned S. H. O. Petition allowed. Investigation quashed.