ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J. The petitioner filed writ of habeas corpus against the respondents for production of minor girl Priyanka (victim) said to be kept in illegal detention by R2. Priyanka was traced by Devanahalli Police and was produced before this Court. The victim on 28.1.2007 submitted to this Court that her parents are contemplating to get her married with one Nagesh against her will and she was not willing to discontinue her education, R2 assured that he would help her in prosecuting her studies. Therefore, stated that she would like to stay with R2. This Court taking into consideration the statement of the victim directed the petitioner not to perform her marriage during her minority and Priyanka was given to the custody of the petitioner. 2. Devanahalli police have registered a case against R2 and others for committing offences under Section 366A, 342 IPC etc. in Crime No. 208 of 2007. The I.O. after registration of the crime for the purpose of the investigation summoned the petitioner and her mother to record their statements. According to the La. the victim and her mother did not turn up to give statements. 3. Per contra, the petitioner contends that the Devanahalli PSI misbehaved the victim after she was traced, insisted her to remove mangalya and told her that she should give a statement to the effect that during the period of absence from her house she was staying with her friends. 4. The victim offended by the conduct of PSI gave a petition dated 28.2007 complaining against the PSI to the Inspector of Police Devanahalli (IO). The victim in the complaint against the PSI makes allegations that she was forced to make submissions before the Court against her parents. 5. The Inspector of police has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. In the said statement recorded on 28.2007 she has stated the facts consistent with the submissions made before this Court. In the complaint dated 28.2007 given to Police Inspector she has made allegations against the PSI that he has misbehaved with her after she was traced, the PSI insisted removal of manglya and forced her to give statement against her parents. The statement of the victim recorded by the I.O. on 28.2007 is not voluntary. 6. In the complaint dated 28.2007 given to Police Inspector she has made allegations against the PSI that he has misbehaved with her after she was traced, the PSI insisted removal of manglya and forced her to give statement against her parents. The statement of the victim recorded by the I.O. on 28.2007 is not voluntary. 6. The petitioner contends that an enquiry to be held against the erring police officers who are trying to bailout R.2 and other accused from the criminal proceedings. The petitioner in the writ petition submits that the contents of the missing complaint was got written by force at the instance of PSI and the submissions made by the victim in the Court and before the I.O. is not voluntary. 7. On the consideration of the record, it appears that the police have properly registered the case against R.2 for an offence under Section 366-A and 342 IPC. The Police Inspector (I.O) is conducting the investigation and against whom no allegation of malafide made. The I.O. will have the necessary jurisdiction to go into the allegations made by the petitioner and the victim in the course of investigation. It is not warranted and proper for the Court in the writ of habeas corpus to supervise and go into the details of investigation. When the detenue is traced and given to proper custody, the writ of habeas corpus should normally be disposed of as closed. It is unnecessary and not warranted for the Court to interfere with the investigation when a criminal case is registered and investigation is on. The allegations of malafides in the investigation in the connected criminal case if any should be complained to the senior Police authorities. Such allegations cannot be entertained and gone into in a writ of habeas corpus since it would be wholly outside the Scope of the writ of habeas corpus. 8. In view of the reasons and discussions made above, we find that it is unnecessary to pursue the complaint of the victim dated 28.2007 and it is for the I.O. to take appropriate decision and steps in the matter. Accordingly the Writ Petition closed.