JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This LPA is directed against the Judgment/Order dated: 30-05-2017 passed by the Writ Court in OWP No.824 of 2017, whereby the learned Writ Court has disposed of the petition on the day first of its consideration without even issuing notices to the respondents and including the appellant herein and without admitting the writ petition to hearing. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that appellant is the father of one Sayidha Kouser, respondent No.1 herein and OWP No. 824/17 came to be filed by Respondent No. 2 (Mohd. Mahroof), by showing respondent No. 1 also as one of the petitioners, when the fact remains that the respondent No. 2 had kidnapped respondent No.1 and in this behalf FIR No. 29/2017 dated: 20-06-2017 stands already registered at Police station, Women Cell, Rajouri u/s 366/109 RPC. Respondent No. 2 in order to save himself from the clutches of law had filed a false, frivolous and vexatious Writ Petition OWP No. 824/17 by annexing the documents with the petition showing respondent No. 1 as wife of respondent No.2 and appellant apprehended that the signatures of respondent No. 1 on writ petition, affidavits, vakalatnama and other documents annexed with the petition had been obtained by the respondent No. 2 under immense pressure and coercion. That the daughter of the appellant (respondent No. 1 herein) stands already married with Rafaqat Hussain S/o Sher Baz R/o Village Kandi, tehsil Koteranka district Rajouri on 27-04-2017. The said marriage between the respondent No.1 and Rafaqat Hussain was arranged marriage which was attended by all the respectable members of the society/community including the parents and other relations of the respondent No. 1 as well as Rafaqat Hussain and proper Nikah ceremony as per Muslim Law was performed. That after marriage between Rafaqat Hussain and respondent No.1, accused persons namely Moola Dad, Mohd. Arooq, Mohd. Maroof, Mohd. Khalil, Mohd. Latief, Naseema Akhter, Yasmeen, Javed Iqbal and Rubina Kouser all residents of Village Ladot tehsil and district Rajouri, who are in relation with the appellant stares threatening the appellant of dire-consequences as they were not happy with Rafaqat Hussain and on 14-05-2017, daughter of the appellant was kidnapped by the aforementioned accused persons from her matrimonial home situated at Village Kandi, tehsil Kotanka district Rajouri and on this behalf FIR No. 29/2017 under section 366/109 RPC has been registered P/S Womem Cell, Rajouri. 3. Appellant has prayed that order of Writ Court be set aside because appellant was not heard; and direction be issued to police agency to conduct investigation of FIR No. 29/2017 under section 366/109 RPC. 4. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the appellant and gone through the order impugned. 5. Bare perusal of order passed by writ court, it is evident that respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before writ court for protection of their life and liberty on the grounds that they are major and have performed the marriage with each other out of their free will and without any undue threat or coercion of any body. The writ court after relying upon the documents of marriage including the age of respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was major and petitioners in writ petition have solemnized marriage out of their free will. Accordingly on relying upon Apex Court Judgment reported as Lata Singh v. State of UP & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522 granted the relief and directed the police concern to protect their life. 6. The argument of learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant being the father of respondent No. 1 though arrayed as one of respondents in writ petition, has not been heard at the time of disposal of Writ petition by learned Single judge; this argument is without any merit because appellant was not necessary party, as her daughter was major. Further argument of counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 2 kidnapped respondent No. 1 (his daughter) and FIR No. 29/17 dated: 20-06-2017 has been lodged in Police, so police was required to investigate the matter. This argument is also not tenable because admittedly offences u/s 366/109 RPC has been lodged with regard to kidnapping of respondent No. 1 by respondent no.2 and before Writ Court respondent No.1 has categorically stated in the petition that she is major and has solemnized marriage with respondent no.2, out of her free will and without any undue threat or coercion. She was on affidavit before Writ Court. In kidnapping case, the evidence of victim is important. When a victim categorically states that she has solemnized marriage with alleged accused out of her free will and without any undue threat or coercion, no case for further investigation is made out. She was on affidavit before Writ Court. In kidnapping case, the evidence of victim is important. When a victim categorically states that she has solemnized marriage with alleged accused out of her free will and without any undue threat or coercion, no case for further investigation is made out. However, police has to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion. 7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned Single Bench. The LPA is accordingly dismissed in limine along with MPs, if any.