A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) EVERY thing is fair in love and war, probably this is what landed the petitioner in the ocean of trouble. He stands charged under Section 366/376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case No. 426 of 1997. The criminal action was brought to motion by an F. I. R. lodged alleging that, when opposite party No. 2 was on her way to purchase Rakhi, she was eloped by the petitioner and others. Several other allegations have also been made in the F. I. R. ( 2 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the lady Smt. Tripura Nayak, aged about 23 years filed an affidavit before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Dhenkanal, on June 24, 1998, solemnly affirming that she has married the petitioner on January 20, 1998 in presence of relations, well wishers and friends in accordance with the Hindu caste, customs and rites and the couple is leading a happy conjugal life as husband and wife. The said affidavit was sworn to by opposite party No. 2 before the Oath Commissioner, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Dhenkanal on June 24. 1998 being identified by Shri S. K. Mishra. Advocate. A certificate has also been given by the Oath Commissioner that the contents of the affidavit were read over and explained in details to opposite party No. 2 and she admitted before the Oath Commissioner to have understood the contents of the am davit. The affidavit alongwith an application was filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, on July 8, 1998 with a prayer to revoke the order of cognizance. The learned Magistrate held that there is no ground to exculpate the accused at that stage and refused to set aside the order of cognizance. The said order is impugned in this case, tinder Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the materials available on record. Opposite party No. 2 is admittedly 23 years of age at the relevant time. She has sworn to an affidavit and filed the same in Court stating that she has married the accused according to the Hindu rites and customs and she is living happily with the accused. Opposite party No. 2 is admittedly 23 years of age at the relevant time. She has sworn to an affidavit and filed the same in Court stating that she has married the accused according to the Hindu rites and customs and she is living happily with the accused. According to me, nothing can be more satisfying for the parents to find a daughter living a happy married life. A doubt, however, arises as to whether to wriggle out of the prosecution the present arrangement is made with opposite party No. 2 and it may so happen after closure of the proceeding she may be HI-treated and/or tortured. I sincerely hope that such an occasion would never come. But if such an incident occurs, it will be open to the Opposite Party No. 2 - wife to approach this Court or any other Court seeking for redressal. The opposite party No. 2 being a lady of 23 years of age, as would be evident from the affidavit sworn to by her, she is a major and she has the right to go anywhere and live with anyone. Since opposite party No. 2 has solemnly affirmed an affidavit stating that she is married and leading a blissful married life, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Baby Sita Kumari Agarwal v. Officer-in-charge, Purighat P. S. , Cuttack and the ratio of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fazle Gafar Khan and others v. State of West Bengal and another, I feel ends of justice and equity will be better served if the order taking cognizance in G. R. Case No. 426 of 1997 is quashed. My view also finds support from the decisions of this Court in the cases of Sk. Betal Sk. Raja and others v. State of Orissa, Rajendra Kumar Jit and others v. State of Orissa and others, Smt. Lila Bua Panda and another v. State of Orissa, and in another decision reported in 1998 (II) OLR 6506. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed accordingly and the order, taking cognizance is quashed. Petition allowed.