JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner - Santosh Nath is present in person with his counsel Mr. Ajitabh Acharya; Babu Lal- respondent No. 5 is present in person with his counsel Mr. K.L. Joshi, Ms. Rekha and Shri Pukh Raj. ASI are also present. 2. Pursuant to the earlier order passed in this matter, today, the respondent No. 5 Mr. Babu Lal has produced his daughter Ms. Rekha before the Court. 3. We have conferred with Ms. Rekha in camera proceedings and thereafter in presence of all the concerned. Ms. Rekha has categorically made the statement before us that Santosh Nath, the petitioner present in the Court is the person with whom she has contacted marriage; and that she does not want to go with her parents; and that she wants to go with the petitioner-Santosh Nath. It is also an admitted position on behalf of all the parties that Ms. Rekha is about 22 years in age. 4. Looking to the overall circumstances and the categorical statement made by Ms. Rekha before us, we find no impediment in letting go to the place of her choice. In the circumstances of the case, it is also considered appropriate that if she wants to accompany the petitioner-Santosh Nath and to go with him, it shall be required of the ASI Shri Pukhraj to ensure their safe passage to the destination of their choice. 5. While going through the case diary, we have noticed the unacceptable position that though the Judicial Magistrate, Devgarh forwarded the complaint as made by the petitioner - Santosh Nath as back as on 15.12.2011 under Section 56 (3) CrPC but in the Police Station Devgarh an FIR thereupon seems to have been registered only on 09.01.2012, and the endorsement does not bear seal and signature of the concerned official. 6. The manner of dealing with the matter, where requirement of the orders passed by the Magistrate were not carried out within reasonable time is questionable. Further, from the case diary, we find that the progress of investigation is not satisfactory and has left very many things to be desired. 6. The manner of dealing with the matter, where requirement of the orders passed by the Magistrate were not carried out within reasonable time is questionable. Further, from the case diary, we find that the progress of investigation is not satisfactory and has left very many things to be desired. It shall be required of concerned in-charge of the Police station to submit all the explanations before the Magistrate concerned, who shall be expected to deal with the matter in accordance with law and if necessary, to pass appropriate orders in relation to the laxity on the part of the police officials in this matter. The learned Government Counsel has also assured us that the matter shall be reported to the Superintendent of Police concerned for appropriate action. It is expected that appropriate action shall be taken without fail. 7. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.Petition partly allowed. *******