Judgment 1. This application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order of cognizance dated 23.11.2005 passed by C.J.M. Bhojpur, Ara in Sahar (Chauri) P.S. Case No.68 of 2005 thereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under sec. 366(A)/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. It appears that on the basis of the fardbeyan lodged by mother of the victim lady, (Baby Devi), the police registered abovementioned police case against the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under sec. 366(A) of the I.P.C. against all the petitioners. Accordingly, the court below has taken cognizance against all the accused persons. 3. It is submited on behalf of the petitioners that taking cognizance against the petitioners is a misuse of process of the court. It is not a case of kidnapping or abduction. Baby Devi-the victim lady, is major lady. She had love affairs with petitioner Santosh Ram. Accordingly, she married in a temple and began to live as husband and wife. Later on, the parent of the victim lady forcibly married the lady with another person from where she fled away. Later on, she with her own consent and willingness began to live with the petitioner Santosh Ram in Punjab. The victim lady was never kidnapped or abducted by the petitioners. In support of his contention, he relied upon the statement of the victim lady recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. which is Annexure-2 as well as the medical report of medical board which is Annexure-3. 4. Perused the statement of the victim lady recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. On perusal of it, it is quite clear that a false case of kidnapping has been filed by the informant against the petitioners. The petitioners never kidnapped/abducted the victim lady. She voluntarily with her own consent fled away alongwith her lover Santosh Ram and began to live in Punjab as husband and wife. The medical report also goes to show that she was major at the time of the alleged date of the occurrance. 5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that no case is made out under sec. 366(A)/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners. They have been un-necessarily implicated in this case. Continuance of this case is out and out misuse of process of the court. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is hereby quashed.