JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J. This application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of four petitioners (1) Fazle Gaffar Khan @ Kallu (2) Rahima Khatoon, (3) Fazle Reza Khan @ Hara @ Fazlu and (4) Kamnuddin Sahaluddin, is directed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2441/97 pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, District South 24 Parganas, corresponding to Section "B" (Beniapukur Police Station) Case No. 310 dated 7.8.97 u/ss. 366/120B IPC and the order dated 27.8.98 passed therein accepting the Naraji petition filed on behalf of one Syed Nawal Shah Alquadri, the defacto complainant and opposite party No. 2 in this application. 2. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the brother and mother respectively of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 4 is a family friend of the petitioner No. 1. 3. Briefly stated, Beniapukur P.S. case No. 310 dated 7.8.97 u/ss. 366/120B IPC was recorded on a written complaint of the opposite party No. 2 herein alleging inter alia that the petitioner No. 1 Fazle Gaffar Khan @ Kallu, had kidnapped his own niece Mabashshera Murshed Alquadri, in conspiracy with the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, from in front of Lady Brabourne College on 7.8.97 when Mabashshera had gone to her college to attend her computer class. It was further alleged that around 1 P.M. on that day, petitioner No. 1 informed over telephone at the residence of the informant opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner No. 1 was taking Mabashshera and he also threatened not to inform the police. 4. On the said F.I.R. investigation started and after completion of investigation, the I/O of the case submitted report in Final Form u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. on 2.9.97 stating therein that the case had been declared "Mistake of Fact" by D.C.E.S.D. on 28.8.97. 5. The defacto-complainant opposite party No. 2 challenged the aforesaid observation and report of the I/O in Final Form by filing a Naraji petition before the Ld. Magistrate, praying not to accept the Final Report submitted by the I/O of the case and also not to discharge the accused persons in the case. 6. 5. The defacto-complainant opposite party No. 2 challenged the aforesaid observation and report of the I/O in Final Form by filing a Naraji petition before the Ld. Magistrate, praying not to accept the Final Report submitted by the I/O of the case and also not to discharge the accused persons in the case. 6. It has been averred in the Naraji petition that Fazle Gaffar Khan, petitioner No. 1 herein was their domestic servant for a long time but due to his illiterary and lack of sobriety towards the members of the family of the defacto-complainant and teasing and taunting the women-folk of their neighbours as well as those of the defacto-complainant, he was dismissed from service more than a year ago. It has been further stated that the said Fazle Gaffar Khan had taken money in cash and also in kind from various persons by utilising the name of the family and thus injuring their reputation and he was also caught red-handed in stealing money several times and in the circumstances he could not be taken back in service in spite of persuasions of the relatives and friends of Fazle Gaffar Khan. 7. It has also been alleged that the Final report by the I/O was submitted without examining any of the vital witnesses of the case in spite of earnest request by the defacto-complainant. It has also been stated that the reasons for submission of Final Report, as above, appear to be that the I/O received a letter from the victim girl that she voluntarily left the guardianship of her parents and married the petitioner No. 1 and she voluntarily appeared before the court and made statements pleading for release of the accused persons from Jail custody but she was never questioned about her voluntariness, although admittedly she was under the custody of the accused persons at that time and in any event voluntary consent of a minor girl is invalid and even if she be considered "Major" her consent obtained by threat and coercion shall be considered invalid in the eye of law, and in any event the defacto-complainant must be given an opportunity to prove his case by adducing evidence. 8. It also appears that on 22.12.97 the victim girl filed a petition stating that she was legally married to the petitioner No. 1 on 27.1.97 in the office of the Marriage registrar Mr. 8. It also appears that on 22.12.97 the victim girl filed a petition stating that she was legally married to the petitioner No. 1 on 27.1.97 in the office of the Marriage registrar Mr. Shyamal K. Banerjee and she had left the house of her parents and was living with her husband and she also appeared before the court of the Ld. Magistrate by filing a Vokalatnama on 20.8.97 stating that she was "Major" and her date of birth is 11.7.75 and she graduated from Lady Brabourne College in 1997 and she voluntarily abandoned the guardianship of her parents and had been living peacefully with her husband and there is no chance of coercion or intimidation on her by her husband and the allegations by the defacto-complainant are false and the Naraji petition should be rejected. 9. It is found that the Ld. Magistrate after considering that the I/O did not pray for recording the statement of the victim girl u/s. 164 Cr. PC although the I/O received an affidavit dated 19.7.97 sworn by the victim girl before the Notary that she married the petitioner No. 1, out of free will and love, and no such statement being recorded, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that no duress or threat was posed on her before her filing the aforesaid petition on 22.12.97. The Ld. Magistrate also recorded that the I/O did not visit the house of the in-laws of the victim girl and could not say about the present condition of the life of the victim girl and admittedly the victim girl belongs to a very rich and educated family of the muslim community of Calcutta and the petitioner No. 1 was their domestic servant, accepted the Naraji petition. 10. Mr. Bhaskar Sen, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that that Mahashshera being aged about 23 years and she being legally married under the Special Marriage Act on 27.1.97, i.e. more than six months before the date of complaint on 7.8.97, the question of offence u/ss. 366/34 IPC against the petitioners does not arise at all. 11. Mr. Bhaskar Sen, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that that Mahashshera being aged about 23 years and she being legally married under the Special Marriage Act on 27.1.97, i.e. more than six months before the date of complaint on 7.8.97, the question of offence u/ss. 366/34 IPC against the petitioners does not arise at all. 11. He further submitted that in the context that Mahashshera herself having written letters to senior police personnel stating that she had voluntarily left her paternal home and was residing with her husband of her own free will besides submitting an affidavit sworn by her to that effect, the impugned order of acceptance of Naraji petition is liable to be quashed and the impugned proceeding is also liable to be quashed as the continuation of the said proceeding will be an abuse of the process of court and this court has power to quash the impugned proceeding and order in such circumstances as prayed for and he cited the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1960 SC 941 (Satyadhyan Ghoshal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Another), (2) AIR 1981 SC 806 (Akhilesh Prasad vs. Union Territory of Mizoram), (3) AIR 1982 SC 949 (State of West Bengal & Others Appellants vs. Swapan Kumar Guha), (4) AIR 1988 SC 709 (Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre and Others, (5) AIR 1989 SC 2222 (State of U.P. vs. R.K. Srivastava) and (6) AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.) in support of his submissions. 12. Mr. Kazi Safiullah Ld. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the contents of the Naraji petition do disclose offence u/s. 366/34 IPC although the averments have been denied on behalf of the accused-petitioners and in such circumstances this court should not enter the debatable area at this stage and quash the impugned proceeding and the order and deprive the defacto-complainant of his right under the law and equity to prove his case under the provisions of Section 173(2)(ii) of the Cr. PC and he cited the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1985 SC 1285 (Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (2) AIR 1980 SC 1883 (H.S. Bains vs. The State) (3) 1996 SCC (Cri) 443 (Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Mohd. PC and he cited the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1985 SC 1285 (Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (2) AIR 1980 SC 1883 (H.S. Bains vs. The State) (3) 1996 SCC (Cri) 443 (Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Mohd. Habibur Rahman Faizi & Ors.) and (4) AIR 1963 SC 1430 (Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chandra Bose & Anr.) in support of his submissions. 13. After considering the respective submissions of the respective parties and perusal of the records including the impugned order, this court is of the view that the legal position is clear in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in AIR 1980 SC 1883 and AIR 1985 SC 1285 (supra) and in the circumstances the defacto-complainant is entitled to be given an opportunity to prove his case and this court should not enter into the debatable area of the disputed questions of facts in its revisional Jurisdiction. 14. This court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned proceeding or the order. The application therefore stands disposed of with the direction to the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from date. Application disposed of. Direction given.