JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners by this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. sought quashing of FI.R. No. 80/2001 P.S. Sadar, Bikaner pending investigation for the offences under Sections 364, 365, 366, 368, 364-A read with Sections 34 & 120-B, I.P.C. 2. Petitioner No. 2 Bheem who is aged about 27 years is the daughter of Complainant Shakuntala. Complainant Shakuntala filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner stating therein that she is resident of Bikaner, living alongwith her husband, son, daughter etc. It was further stated that the person named in the First Information Report as accused are on visiting terms and used to come to her house. On 6.2.2001, the accused persons named therein came to her house and in the pretext of marketing, her daughter Bheem was taken by them. She did not return till late night and, therefore, search was made. It was stated that they have made search of the daughter Bheem but she could not be located. It was alleged that the accused Harish has taken her alongwith him. On these allegations, a complaint was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner who forwarded the same to the Police Station Sadar, Bikaner under Section 156(3), Cr.PC. for investigation 3. During the pendency of investigation, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that complainant Shakuntala W/o .Chhedi Singh filed D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1224/2001. In persuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Corpus-Bheem at her own appeared before the Division Bench on 16.4.2001 and expressed her desire that she would like to live with petitioner No. 1 Harish with whom she is living. She stated that her marriage with petitioner No. 1 Harish has been solemnized on 10.2.2001. A joint petition has been filed by Bheem and her husband Harish, wherein, it is stated that both of them had affairs for last five or more than five years and, therefore, she at her own went alongwith Harish and solemnized marriage with Harish on 10.2.2001 in Arya Samaj at Jaipur, which was registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Pardi. Certified copy of the certificate of marriage to this effect was annexed with the petition as Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. Certified copy of the certificate of marriage to this effect was annexed with the petition as Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. She has also stated that she is M.A. in English and her age is about 27 years. A . copy of the Marks-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education in 1993 has been placed on record as Annx. i wherein her date of birth is shown to be 20.4.77. She has specifically stated that she has not been abducted or kidnapped by Harish or anybody else, but at her sweet-will, she wants to live alongwith Harish as she has solemnized the marriage with Harish. Marriage was registered by Registrar of Marriage Pardi District Naravati (Gujarat). 4. Learned P.R produced the case diary. I have perused the statement of Bheem recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.4.2001 wherein she had clearly stated that she was not abducted or kidnapped by Harish but she at her own will voluntarily went with Harish since she was having affairs for last more than five years and ultimately on 10.2.2001, she contracted marriage with Harish which was registered at Pardi (Gujarat) on 22.2.2001. She has expressed her desire that she wants to live with her husband petitioner No. 1 and according to her statement, no offence whatsoever has been committed by Harish or anybody else. Today, both the petitioners are present in the Court and on being asked she has affirmed the statement made before the police on 16.4.2001 and the averments contended in the petition. She has also filed an affidavit in support of the petition affirming the correctness of the facts mentioned in the petition jointly filed by Harish and Bheem. 5. In K. Ramakrishna & Ors. She has also filed an affidavit in support of the petition affirming the correctness of the facts mentioned in the petition jointly filed by Harish and Bheem. 5. In K. Ramakrishna & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ann reported in AIR 2000 SC 3330 , their Lordships of Supreme Court observed that : "Where the allegation in F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at the face value do not constitute the offence alleged or without appreciating the evidence but only merely by looking at the complaint or the F.I.R. or the accompanying documents, the offence alleged is not disclosed, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved." Their Lordships further observed that "If upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed." 6. In State of Haryana Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 formulated the points on which the F.I.R. can be quashed. Point No. 5 reads thus : "where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, I consider it just and proper to allow the petition filed by the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this petition, filed by the petitioners is allowed and F.I.R. No. 80/2001 lodged by complainant Shakuntala W/o Chhedi Singh at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 364, 365, 366, 368, 364-A read with Sections 34 and 120-B, I.P.C. is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 9. At this stage, petitioner No. 2 Bheem submitted that yesterday her parents were also present in the Court before the Division Bench, and after the order passed by the Division Bench, they have threatened her and her husband regarding dire consequences. 10. In view of this, she may make an application before the appropriate police authority for her protection and safety.Petition allowed - FIR Quashed - In case of any apprehension from her parents, Human to approach Authorities for police protection. *******