Judgment :- This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the father for producing his daughter by name Kumari Sangeetha before this Court on the suspicion that his daughter who is a minor, who was studying in Diploma course at the Regional Vocational Training Institute, Hosur Road, Bangalore is not only missing even since she left her parental house in her native village Haleyalnadu from 24.10.2011 but the petitioner also suspects that she may be in the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent one Rangaswamy, also a resident of the same village and who is also working at Bangalore. 2. Notice having been issued to the learned State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent-State and the 2nd respondent-Police Sub-Inspector, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District response is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in the form of an affidavit of S B Palabhavi, Sub-Police Inspector, Hiriyur Rural Police Station, Chitradurga District interalia indicates that apart from the police having registered a criminal case No.322/11 on the written complaint lodged by the petitioner about missing of his daughter Kum Sangeetha, there efforts thereafter to trace the missing girl has yielded result as the 3rd respondent and the girl were found together on 14.11.2011 near about Attur Layout, Yelahanka, Bangalore and thereafter, the police have also recorded the statement of the girl Sangeetha etc. and on 15.11.2011 police have also registered a criminal case no.336/11 against the 3rd respondent for offence punishable under Section 366A of the Penal Code and that he was arrested on 15.11.2011 at about 7.00 AM and was produced before the JMFC, Hiriyur and learned Magistrate has remanded him to judicial custody till 28.11.2011. The affidavit also states in response to the writ of habeas corpus before this Court, girl is brought before the Court after seeking permission from the Magistrate before whom the girl had been produced. 3. Sri Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State Public Prosecutor had moved this matter to be taken at 2.30 PM in view of the development that the girl is also brought to the Court by police for seeking suitable orders etc. and therefore, the matter was taken at 2.30 at their request. 4. 3. Sri Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State Public Prosecutor had moved this matter to be taken at 2.30 PM in view of the development that the girl is also brought to the Court by police for seeking suitable orders etc. and therefore, the matter was taken at 2.30 at their request. 4. The girl is present before the Court and on our questioning she states that she voluntarily went with the 3rd respondent and had stayed in the 3rd respondent’s house at Attur Layout. Yelahankar for some time and that she was not under pressure or coercion to stay their etc. 5. A perusal of the statement of the victim recorded by the police indicates that she had acquaintance and liking for the 3rd respondent and their acquaintance is for more than five years now and it has turned into mutual liking and affection for one another and as her parents had expressed their displeasure on such development and they had also intended to get her married to some other person, she had taken shelter in 3rd respondent’s house fearing that the threat may be carried out etc. and after coming to know that her father has lodged a complaint and fearing that she may be taken into custody and imprisonment, both of them had taken shelter at the 3rd respondent’s mother’s place in Yelahanka and thereafter Hiriyur Police visited their house and had taken them to Hiriyur Rural Police Station on 15.11.2011. 6. Petitioner and the other of the said Sangeetha are both present before the Court. While they have assured the Court that their daughter if is ready and willing to go with them, they will take care of her hereinafter and if their daughter is willing to prosecute her studies at Bangalore, they will let her stay in the hostel for which they will make arrangements but she should not give up her studies and go over to other places etc. 7. On our questioning the girl Sangeetha has stated that she is not under any pressure either from the 3rd respondent or anyone else whether to go home or stay in the hostel and she had voluntarily gone in his company etc. 8. 7. On our questioning the girl Sangeetha has stated that she is not under any pressure either from the 3rd respondent or anyone else whether to go home or stay in the hostel and she had voluntarily gone in his company etc. 8. In this view of the matter while this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus does not survive, we have to only strike a note of caution in such matters particularly for the guidance of the investigating agency and the police that insofar as the detenue or victim is concerned, if the person is not one involved in any crime by any overtact etc. no proceedings can be taken in respect of such a person in the absence of any case registered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other penal law, and taking such persons into custody is not a proper thing. 9. The word ‘custody’ is one to deprive a person of his or her freedom and liberty if the person is involved in any crime and to ensure the person’s availability during investigation and later if need be in the proceedings before the Court. 10. The custody of a person i.e., arresting a person can only be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and not in any other manner. It is proper for the police to bare this distinction in mind whenever they deal with persons particularly minors and others and if the presence of a minor is required to be secured, necessary arrangement may be made so that they are accompanied either by their parents or anybody who has concern for that person and of course to prevent if he or she has been in any way taken by force or kidnapped etc. but not to categorise such a victim also on par with a person who might have been involved in a crime. 11. The girl who was free to move around earlier remains so and therefore, there is no need to issue any writ of habeas corpus as it will be issued only when a person is in illegal custody or forcible custody of any other person. The girl has expressed her willingness to go with her parents for the present. She is free to move around according to her wish and is at liberty. 12. The girl has expressed her willingness to go with her parents for the present. She is free to move around according to her wish and is at liberty. 12. Learned SPP assures the Court that in view of this development today before this Court and in view of this order, necessary and proper action will be taken by moving the jurisdictional Magistrate and seeking for advancement of the case. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned State Public Prosecutor free of cost. 15. We would also like to observe that the provisions of Section 366A of the Indian Penal code, a Section which was introduced by way of amendment to the Code way back in the year 1923 while may have its utility even now, its employment and application should be in cases where the facts and circumstances will fit into the purpose and ingredients of the Section and not to employ the Section in situation where a boy and a girl are in mutual love and affection and are inclined to go against the wishes of the parents or flout or advice or guidance of the parents. Learned Magistrate who have occasion to deal with such cases would apply their mind to the ingredients of Section 366A whenever cases of this nature are brought before the Court, involving offence under Section 366A of the Penal Code.