The Investigating Officer, Ms. Vijay Laxmi Pandey, has appeared in the Court and is directed to produce Sri Manoram Agnihotri (father of petitioner) and his wife who according to said Investigating Officer in Jail in connection with the F. I. R. lodged by the respondent No. 3 in Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 under Section 366, I. P. C. , P. S. Krishna Nagar, Lucknow tomorrow at 10. 15 a. m. alongwith the record of other cases, if any, relating to the arrest of those aforementioned persons. The A. P. P. informs that they are in judicial custody under orders of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Registrar, High Court , Lucknow Bench is directed to procure the original record of the said Case Crime No. 165 of 2005, pending in the Court of Special C. J. M. (Custom), Lucknow and produce the same at 10. 15 a. m. tomorrow. Ms. Neena Agnihotri has filed her own affidavit in support of the present writ petition filed by the Nitin Agnihotri (an enrolled Advocate) to support the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner, Nitin Agnihotri. Smt. Neena Agnihotri (i. e. Neena Arora) has stated before us that she is 25 years of age. She has done post graduation and working as teacher. On being examined by us she has categorically stated that she has willfully and voluntarily, considering all pros and cons, married the petitioner. . Nitin Agnihotri and wants to stay with her said husband. She has further stated that she has been pressurized by the respondents (particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3) not to live with her husband and go back to the house of respondent No. 3 (her fathers place ). From the demeanour of Ms. Neena Agnihotri, we are satisfied that her statement is being made without coercion, or under threat or pressure. Her statement is out of her free will. She is major and free to live wherever she desires. She can understand her good and bad and conscious of her well being. In that view of the matter, prima facie we find that F. I. R. against Nitin Agnihotri has been made with oblique motive. The respondents-authorities are hereby restrained to interfere with the peaceful living or raid the house of the accused persons including petitioner and said Ms. She can understand her good and bad and conscious of her well being. In that view of the matter, prima facie we find that F. I. R. against Nitin Agnihotri has been made with oblique motive. The respondents-authorities are hereby restrained to interfere with the peaceful living or raid the house of the accused persons including petitioner and said Ms. Neena Agnihotri (i. e. Neena Arora) in the aforementioned F. I. R. dated 9-6-2005 registered as Case No. 165 of 2005 under Section 366 I. P. C. , P. S. Krishnanagar, District Lucknow. Any violation of our order shall be viewed seriously. We further direct, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow to personally ensure that respondents do not act any breach of the order passed by us today and take appropriate steps by providing such protection to their life and body as may be required. The responsibility of life and welfare of Nitin Agnihotri, his wife Neena Agnihotri and their family members (particularly the accused mentioned in the F. I. R.) shall be of the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and the respondent No. 2. We further issue an ad interim order particularly against the respondent No. 3 Sardar Mahendra Singh not to resort any such act which may directly or indirectly interfere with this Courts order or else this Court shall take such action which will be deemed fit to ensure that muscle power is not above "rule of Law". The Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench is directed to contact today the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow for providing such protection and force as may be required so that Ms. Neena Agnihotri may go at the place she desires and stay there safely. Ms. Neena Agnihotri shall also appear tomorrow at 10. 15 a. m. under the police force protection". 27-6-2005 Ap Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for all the concerned parties without payment of necessary charges today". 27-6-2005. " 2. Today Sardar Mahendra Singh in person, respondent No. 3, alongwith Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate appeared before us. Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner and Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) who filed affidavit in support of Writ Petition also appeared in person. His father and mother have also been brought from Jail. 3. The submissions made on behalf of said Sardar Mahendra Singh (father of Ms. Today Sardar Mahendra Singh in person, respondent No. 3, alongwith Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate appeared before us. Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner and Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) who filed affidavit in support of Writ Petition also appeared in person. His father and mother have also been brought from Jail. 3. The submissions made on behalf of said Sardar Mahendra Singh (father of Ms. Neena who is major) show that he is not prepared to accept the hard fact of her daughter marrying the petitioner or at least not willing to live with him. He appears to have made an issue of prestige and ego. He even accuses and questions the wisdom of existing law which guarantees liberty to adult citizens to take decisions by themselves. Respondent No. 3 and his Counsel have raised apprehension that his daughter may not have been murdered. This apprehension of respondent No. 3 is misconceived/misplaced per se against record. Such a submission apparently is, nothing but an eye wash and an afterthought to cover up his motive get back the custody of Ms. Neena, who is now married to Nitin and entitled to live and stay with him. 4. Perusal of the F. I. R. dated 9-6-2005/annexure-1 to the writ petition indicates that said respondent No. 3 was fully aware of his daughters acquaintance and affair with the petitioner. Above F. I. R. categorically mentions that daughter of complainant/respondent No. 3 (Ms. Neena) had left her parents house with an intention to marry the petitioner. There is not even an iota of material or allegation in F. I. R. to show that accused persons (mentioned in said F. I. R.) abducted or took Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) against her wishes with an intention to murder her. Record and conduct of Ms. Neena shows that she had willingly left her fathers house, happily married and wish to live with her husband and in-laws. 5. We are satisfied that F. I. R. has been lodged with an object to coerce the petitioner and his family members to succumb to the personal whim of Respondent No. 3 so that he may procure custody of Ms. Neena. 6. We called for the record of Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 pending in the Court of Special C. J. M. (Custom) Lucknow. Neena. 6. We called for the record of Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 pending in the Court of Special C. J. M. (Custom) Lucknow. Record show that bail application filed on behalf of Manoram Agnihotri and his wife, (accused in the said Criminal case who happens to be father and mother of Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner) was rejected. 7. This Court expected Judicial Magistrate to have applied his mind deeper to see things in substratum before rejecting the bail application of these persons. 8. We find nexus/connivance on the part of the respondents vis-a-vis Nitin (the petitioner), his wife (Neena), and his Parents. 9. With reference to the statement of Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) referred to in our earlier order dated 27-6-2005, we again satisfied ourselves that the petitioner and Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) have married out of their free volition, free will, without pressure, threat or coercion, etc. and have married each other knowing the consequences of their such decision. 10. Ms. Neena informs the Court that authorities are in league with the complainant-Respondent No. 3 for obvious reasons and reasons are not far to fetch. She also informs that police was harassing the sister of the petitioner (namely, Deepti Pandey wife of Amitabh Pandey-permanent resident of Kanpur- who had came to visit her parents ). She also categorically states that she is put to threat, and pressurized by the respondents to make statement against petitioner and his parents and that she was tortured in the past, given poison and under fear of torture and emotional black-mail her father has obtained her signature on blank papers and also a suicide note. 11. We do not approve such approach particularly in the matter as the present one. 12. There is nothing to show that the petitioner, his parent or his wife has any criminal history and no criminal record is brought to our notice. police is meant to protect rights of parties-impartially and must appreciate the distinction between hardened criminals and ordinary citizens with no bad track. It is not supposed to act as an instrumentality of complainant or to cause atrocities to serve the oblique object of complaint ignoring the fact that a major person (be men or women) has a right to live as per his/her choice and cannot be compelled to stay/live with parents. Here Ms. It is not supposed to act as an instrumentality of complainant or to cause atrocities to serve the oblique object of complaint ignoring the fact that a major person (be men or women) has a right to live as per his/her choice and cannot be compelled to stay/live with parents. Here Ms. Neena has married the Petitioner and there is no violation of any rule of law. 13. One can easily imagine the situation if people loose faith in rule of law or the agency required to enforce law. Answer is not far to fetch. We are fully satisfied that this is an abuse of process of law. 14. The present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for relief of issuing a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of F. I. R. dated 9-6-2005/annexure-1 to the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Consequently, we quash the impugned F. I. R. and all consequential proceedings including Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 pending before Special C. J. M. (Custom), Lucknow. 16. The accused persons named in the F. I. R. need not be taken into custody as they are set free and are at liberty to stay and move, as they like. 17. We direct the concerned Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 182 Cr. P. C. within two weeks against respondent No. 3 for filing F. I. R. (prima facie with concocted facts ). Registry shall ensure that a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magisterial Court within one week from today. 18. In view of the statement made by several Advocates at the Bar as well as Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) that people belonging to the Sikh Community were hovering in and outside Court compound and threatened her of dire consequences, this Court also takes notice of these facts after verifying from the Registry of the Court. 19. We may note that after above order was dictated but before it was finalized and signed, Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) approached the Court at 8. 19. We may note that after above order was dictated but before it was finalized and signed, Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) approached the Court at 8. 30 p. m. and complained that his in-laws have not been released and also that she was also being given threat while she was moving from the Court after judgment was dictated and that his father was till in contact with the Investigating Officer and that she has valid and genuine reasons for apprehension of not being secure and safe and anything would happen to her and her husband. 20. In that view of the matter, the bench was again constituted and order was passed which reads as follows – "ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) W/o Nitin Agnihotri R/o 296-B, Sector-K, Aashiyana Colony, P. S. Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, has again approached and informed that her in-laws have not been released from jail, her security is also in jeopardy because the judgment delivered dictated in open Court, is not available. WRIT PETITION was allowed by the Court today and judgment dictated in open Court in presence of all Parties concerned-including I. O. K. L. Pandey, we have directed to release Sh. Manoram Agnihotri and his wife, named as accused in F. I. R. registered as Crime Case No. 165 of 2005 and not to sent jail from Court. Respondent also take care of security of above named persons. Judgment though typed but require correction before it is finalised, particularly keeping in mind that Sh. (Sardar) Mahendra Singh (Respondent No. 3 in W. P.) appeared in Court at 2. 00 p. m. (just after LUNCH), i. e. , after judgment was dictated in open Court and Court had indicated that fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed vide said judgment shall not be realised, appropriate moulding of judgment became necessary. Regular certified cannot be available today. It is 8. 30 (20:30 Hrs. ). We, therefore, have no option but to pass this order separately. Respondents in the above-Writ Petition as well as Suptdt. Jail and other concerned authorities are directed : (1) to release Sh. Manoram Agnihotri (referred to above) and also his wife and set them free forthwith. (2) To provide security to Nitin Agnihotri, Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora), Manoram Agnihotri and his wife (referred to above ). (3) To ensure that persons (referred to above) are not harassed or humiliated. Jail and other concerned authorities are directed : (1) to release Sh. Manoram Agnihotri (referred to above) and also his wife and set them free forthwith. (2) To provide security to Nitin Agnihotri, Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora), Manoram Agnihotri and his wife (referred to above ). (3) To ensure that persons (referred to above) are not harassed or humiliated. Shri U. S. AWASTHI H. J. S. JOINT REGISTRAR, LUCKNOW BENCH AT LKO. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE at ALLAHABAD is permitted to procure photo-state copy of this order in his custody, get it attested under his seal and signature: which shall be treated deemed as certified copy issued by the Court so that it is communicated to all concerned for immediate compliance. (A. K. Yog, J.) 28-6-2005 (R. Sharma, J.) 28-6-2005". 21. Consequently, we have no doubt that this is a fit case where we award penal costs of Rs. 50,000/- against respondent No. 1 to be paid to the Petitioner within four weeks from today. 22. On the other hand, we are also aware that this Court should not do anything which may be counter active in bringing the two families together. 23. We have no doubt that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should also be imposed as penal cost against respondent No. 3 considering trauma and agony which the petitioner, his parents and his wife Ms. Neena, his sister have undergone in the past few days. We are, however, conscious that in case aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 is directed to be recovered from respondent No. 3 it may create a permanent cleavage-in the mind and heart of said respondent No. 3, and his family which may not be conducive in settlement of emotions and reconciliation of the two families. Time is the best healer. And we allow the same and direct that respondent No. 3 shall not be liable to damages/cost at this stage, provided he honours his undertaking to the Court that he shall reconcile (on afterthought and bless, Ms. Neena-his daughter and her husband ). We are conscious of tackling a case, not relating to cattle or animal, but human beings. 24. We also direct the respondent No. 1, their servant, agent etc. not to interfere with the peaceful living of the petitioner or their family members in connection with the aforesaid F. I. R. quashed by us. Neena-his daughter and her husband ). We are conscious of tackling a case, not relating to cattle or animal, but human beings. 24. We also direct the respondent No. 1, their servant, agent etc. not to interfere with the peaceful living of the petitioner or their family members in connection with the aforesaid F. I. R. quashed by us. Any complaint on the part of these persons with regard to the breach of this order shall be viewed seriously and Court may be constrained to take appropriate action to punish the guilty. 25. We further direct the Director General of Police, U. P. District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall personally look into this matter and ensure that respondent No. 3 or his agent, servant, employees, associates, accomplices, etc. acting on behalf of respondent No. 3, do not interfere with peaceful living or movement of Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner, Manoram Agnihotri (father of the petitioner), wife Lata Agnihotri (mother of the petitioner) and Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) wife of the petitioner and other family members (referred to above in this judgment) and/or not being harassed in any manner. 26. We further direct the aforesaid authorities (individually and jointly) to ensure protection of life and body by providing sufficient force at their residence for a minimum period of four months from today and to extend the same, if it is so desired by aforesaid persons or otherwise authorities are satisfied that prevailing situation continues. 27. Writ Petition stands allowed with costs subject to above directions. Petition allowed. .