JUDGEMENT 1. This matter was taken up, for the first time, on 4.6.2009 and an order was passed directing the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station Munger, the Superintendent of Police, Munger and other police officials not to harass the petitioner who after solemnizing her inter-caste, inter-religion marriage, was living with her husband and in-laws at Munger. 2. Since the petitioner had left her parents house on her own for solemnizing inter-religion marriage, her father had filed a SANAHA giving information regarding disappearance of his 17 years old daughter. Considering this aspect, father of the petitioner was noticed to know his reaction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It seems that subsequent to the order dated 4.6.2009. restraining the respondents No. 2 & 5 from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, her husband and family members, an F.I.R. was instituted u/s 366 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code by respondent No. 5 on the basis of SANAHA filed by the respondent No. 6. 4. Petitioners case is that in the name of investigation, respondents Nos. 2 & 5 started to harass the petitioner, her husband and family members. The father of the petitioner (respondent No. 6) appeared in person and filed counter affidavit stating that he never filed any written statement for institution of F.I.R. Respondent No. 6 also stated that now considering the happiness of his daughter, he has no complaints against her daughter though she has solemnized her marriage with a Muslim boy. 5. Law relating to institution of F.I.R. is well settled that a Police Officer will have to institute an F.I.R. on receiving information disclosing cognizable offence or suo motu also he can institute an F.I.R. and start investigation in a case of cognizanble offence, The question which arises for consideration in the present case is, whether there was any such material before the respondents-police officials disclosing offence of cognizable nature, for instituting an F.I.R. suo motu and to investigate the case. Simple facts of this case are that petitioner was born in the year, 1991 and thus, has gained majority on the date; she chose to solemnize her marriage with a Muslim boy, namely, Mohd. Rashid Hussain. There was no illegality in her marriage with Md. Rashid Hussain as both are adults. Simple facts of this case are that petitioner was born in the year, 1991 and thus, has gained majority on the date; she chose to solemnize her marriage with a Muslim boy, namely, Mohd. Rashid Hussain. There was no illegality in her marriage with Md. Rashid Hussain as both are adults. On account of such marriage, no cognizable offence was committed and this question could not be considered as a cognizable offence giving jurisdiction to the police officials to institute an F.I.R. suo motu and start investigation of such an offence. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Munger and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Munger. In paragraph-19 of his counter affidavit, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has made statement which shows his ignorance regarding any stay order passed by the High Court. He has stated that the stay order was not passed against him. Once stay order was passed against the respondent police officer restraining them to disturb and harass the petitioner and her family, it meant that all similarly situated persons connected with that particular case, were restrained from doing any thing, due to which harassment would have been caused to the petitioner and her family members. However, despite the stay order, investigation proceeded and as stated In the counter affidavit, investigation is complete and the offence has been found to be true. 7. Inter-caste, inter-religion marriage in between two adult persons is not a cognizable offence, specially, when the girl has stated that out of her own choice, she went in the company of Md. Rashid Hussain and solemnized her marriage. 8. During pendency of this writ application, I.A. No. 1215 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 256 of 2009 registered for offence u/ss. 363, 365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed. F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 256/09 is quashed. 10. Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner and her family. It is expected from the respondents, specially, Superintendent of Police, Munger, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Munger and other connected police officials that they will not harass the petitioner and her family members, and let them live in peace.