JUDGMENT :

B.N. Kirpal J.

Special leave granted.

2. In the instant case, Respondent 1 had filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court of Kerala alleging that the appellant herein had kidnapped her daughter Anjana Devi who was stated to be a minor. In support of this, a certificate was produced alleging that the girl was born on 28-4-1984.

3. Anjana Devi appeared in court and stated that she was a major and that she had married the appellant herein and she was living with him. Curiously enough, the High Court, instead of dismissing the petition and leaving the parties to take recourse to such other remedy which may be available to them in accordance with law, passed the impugned order directing registration of a case for offences allegedly punishable under Sections 366, 366-A and 376 of a the Penal Code, 1860. In our opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to give this direction. In a habeas corpus petition, all that is required is to find out and produce in court the person who is stated to be missing. Once the person appeared and she stated that she had gone of her own free will, the High Court had no further jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in exercise of its writ jur