JUDGMENT : This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent 1st set to take legal action against respondent 2nd set, for not taking any legal action against respondent 3rd set. 2. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No. 176 of 2018 was registered on 11.03.2018 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no. 4 on the basis of the written report of the petitioner, which was not even signed by him. He contended that the said written report was not filed by him. He has further contended that the victim is a Muslim girl and she could not have married any Hindu boy without conversion of her religion. He has further contended that considering the aforesaid important aspects, the police have wrongly set the girl free after her recovery to go to the place of her choice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that from perusal of the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) itself, it would transpire that Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No. 176 of 2018 was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the petitioner in which he had alleged that his daughter aged about 20 years has been taken away on 10.03.2018 by the accused Ranjit Kumar on the false pretext of filling up form for Group-D posts in Indian Railways and since then he has confined her forcibly at some unknown place and is not allowing her to come back to her home. He contended that the victim was recovered immediately after the institution of the FIR. She made her statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has categorically stated that she had left her house out of her own sweet will without informing anyone on 08.03.2018 and had married Ranjeet Kumar on 09.03.2018 in Shyama Mai Temple at Darbhanga. Since she expressed her desire to go to the place of her father-in-law, the police had no option but to set her free to go to the place of her choice. 4. Since she expressed her desire to go to the place of her father-in-law, the police had no option but to set her free to go to the place of her choice. 4. The written report on the basis of which the FIR has been instituted is reproduced hereunder:- ^^lsok es] Fkkuk izHkkjh Qqyokjh ’kjhQ] iVuk fo“k; %& yM+dh ds xqe’kqnk gksus ds laca/k esa] lj] lfou; fuosnu ;g gS fd eSa eks0 pUnw] jger uxj] bZlkiwj] Qqyokjh ’kjhQ dk fuoklh gw¡A esjh yM+dh ’kek izohu ftldk jax xksjk] dn 4*6 fit yxHkx yEckbZ mez %& 20 o’kZ xqykch jax dk usV dk Qjkd igus gqbZ gSA esjh yM+dh fnukad 10@03@18] fnu ’kfuokj dks jaftr dqekj] firk %& jkek jkt feL=h ¼fprdksgjk gt Hkou ds fiNs >ksiM+iÍh½ dk fuoklh ds lkFk jsyos xzqi D dk form Hkj+us ds cgkus ys x;k gSA rFkk mls vius nokc ij dgh tcju j[ks gq, gSA vkSj ?kj ij vkus ugha ns jgk gS vkSj u gh yM+dh dks vius ifjokj ds fdlh lnL; ls ckr djus ns jgk gSA 10@03@18 dks yxHkx 1%30 cts fnu ls gekjh yM+dh ykirk gSA yM+dk jaftr dqekj dk eksckbZy u0%& 8825138436 gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd vki gekjh yM+dh dks tYn ls tYn lgh lyker ?kj igqapkus dh d`ik djsA blds fy, ge lc vkids lnk vkHkkjh jgsaxsA vkidk vkKkdkjh uke%& eks0 pUnw ¼firk½** 5. From the above written report, it would appear that the same contains the age of the victim, details of her clothes, which she was wearing at the time she left her home, her complexion, height, etc. It also contains the petitioner’s detail and his mobile phone number. It has been addressed by the petitioner to the officer-in-charge, Phulwarisharif, Patna. It is highly unbelievable that the same has not been instituted at the behest of the petitioner. 6. It would appear from Annexure-1 to the petition that after the FIR was instituted, a complaint had been filed by the petitioner in the court of CJM, Patna on 15.03.2018 disclosing the age of the victim to be 17 years. Apparently, the complaint was filed after consulting lawyer after the FIR had been instituted and in view of legal advice, the age of the victim has been reduced to 17 years from the age disclosed earlier in the written report as 20 years. 7. Apparently, the complaint was filed after consulting lawyer after the FIR had been instituted and in view of legal advice, the age of the victim has been reduced to 17 years from the age disclosed earlier in the written report as 20 years. 7. The relevant part of the complaint filed by the petitioner, as in Annexure-1 to this petition, reads as under :- “The humble complaint petition on behalf of the complainant above named; Most Respectfully Sheweth:- 1. That one daughter of the complainant, namely, Shama Praveen, aged about 17 years, fair complexioned of the height of 4’.6” was enticed away/kidnapped by the accused Ranjeet Kumar with help of the other accused persons from the house of the complainant. 2. That since 10.03.2018, the victim Shama Praveen is traceless, and the accused persons are giving one or the other excuse confirming their involvement; but causing much apprehension to the complainant as intention of the accused seems of apprehension of may be either selling her. 3. That the complainant reported the occurrence to Phulwari Sharif P. S. Patna but till today non registration of the FIR And hence this complaint petition. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your honour may be graciously pleased to send this complaint petition to the Thanadhyaksh, Phulwari Sharif, P.S. Patna for lodging of the FIR and investigation. And for this, the Complainant shall ever pray;” 8. From a reading of the aforesaid complaint, it would be evident that in para-3 specific averment has been made by the petitioner that the occurrence was reported to the Phulwarisharif Police Station. 9. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the institution of the FIR in question is not on the basis of the application signed and submitted by the petitioner is contrary to the admission made by the complainant himself. 10. Since the alleged victim stated that she has not been abducted or forcibly confined by any one and had married the respondent no. 4 out of her own sweet will, no illegality can be seen in the action of the police whereby they set her free to go to the place of her choice, as the alleged victim was admittedly a major aged 20 years. Since no allegation was made against any of the private respondents, the police could not have taken any action against them. 11. Since no allegation was made against any of the private respondents, the police could not have taken any action against them. 11. The issue of legality or otherwise of the marriage between the petitioner’s daughter and the respondent no. 4 is not to be decided in the present proceeding. However, it would be relevant to note that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides for a special form of marriage in certain cases such as between people of different faith. 12. In view of the above discussions, I see no merit in this application. It is dismissed, accordingly.