JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner on the allegations about illegal detention of his daughter, allegedly minor in age. On 02.05.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply the requisite sets of paper-book to the learned Government Counsel so as to enable him to complete his instructions. 2. The learned Government Counsel Mr. B.K. Mehar, after completing his instructions, submits today that consequent to the investigation in FIR No.30/2012, Police Station Mahila Thana, Pali, the alleged detenue, the daughter of the petitioner, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 08.05.2012 when the learned Magistrate considered it proper to send her to Nari Niketan until receiving the medical report in relation to her age. It is further pointed out that after obtaining the medical report, the daughter of the petitioner was again produced before the learned Magistrate who, after noticing all the facts and circumstances in the order dated 09.05.2012, deduced that she was above 18 years of age and also found that she was categorically denying to go with her parents. The copies of the said orders dated 08.05.2012 and 09.05.2012 have been placed before us for perusal. It is yet further pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner was again produced before the leaned Judicial Magistrate on 10.05.2012 when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; and a copy of the statement has also been placed before us for perusal. 3. The statement said to have been made by the daughter of the petitioner under Section 164 C.r.P.C. reads as under:- " eSa pksFkh d{kk rd i<+h gwaA esjs ekrk firk eq.Mkokl jgrs gSA esjs 3 HkkbZ o 2 cgusa gSaA esjs firk [ksrh djrs gSA esjh ekrkth Hkhdh nsoh dk pky&pyu vPNk ugha gSA oks esjs dks cspuk pkgrh FkhA esjs dks xyr dke djus ds fy;s dgrh FkhA Mjkrh Fkh ftl dkj.k esa 6 ekg ls esjs cqvkth&QqQkth ds ikl fctyh;kokl pyh x;h rFkk mUgha ds lkFk jgrh gwaA esjs firkth us esjh 'kknh Hkaojth ds yM+ds ds lkFk lkewfgd fookg lEesyu esa r; dj nh Fkh ijUrq esjh ekWa us ukckfyx crkdj esjh 'kknh :dok nh esjh vkt rd 'kknh ugha gq;h gSA eq>s dksbZ Hkh cgyk Qqlykdj ugha ys x;kA eSa esjh cqvkth ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gwWaA " 4. For the observations as made by the learned Magistrate in the orders dated 08.05.2012 and 09.05.2012; and for the statement above-quoted; and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the daughter of the petitioner cannot be said to be in any illegal detention. Thus, so far this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is concerned, we find no reason to entertain the same. Taking note of all the events and circumstances aforesaid, this petition for a writ of habeas corpus stands dismissed. 5. However, it is made clear that we have otherwise not dealt with any other aspect relating to the case; and it shall, of course, be permissible for all the concerned to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law, in case any grievance remaining or arising yet.Petition Dismissed. *******