1. The petitioner, working as a Conductor, fell in love with Miss. Insha Khaleel, aged about 19 years and a student of I B.B.M. Course in St. Agnes College, Mangaluru i.e., the daughter of the 2nd respondent and on 19.11.2014 married her in the Meeting Hall of Sri Seetharamanjaneya Bharathi Mandir, Yenmur Village, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada. The couple, thereafter, got published the matter relating to solemnization of their marriage, in “Jaya Kirana”, a local newspaper. The petitioner’s wife informed the 2nd respondent and also the jurisdictional police, the solemnization of her marriage.

2. The 2nd respondent having lodged a complaint, the first respondent – Ullala Police, registered a case in Crime No. 342/2014, for the offence punishable under S.366 r/w S.34 of IPC, against the petitioner and three others and submitted FIR to the III JMFC, Mangaluru, D. K. This petition was filed, under S.482 Cr. P.C., to quash entire proceedings relating to the said case.

3. The 2nd respondent had filed WPHC No. 228/2014, as against the State and also the petitioner, to issue a writ of Habeas-Corpus, to produce Insha Khaleel and set her at liberty. The petitioner and his wife Smt. Inchara @ Insha, having suo-motu appeared, on 28.11.2014, the said petition was dismissed.

4. Sri Aruna Shyam, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner having not committed any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offence having not been stated in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, the investigation of the case being an empty formality or futile exercise, resulting in waste of public time and money, the impugned proceeding be quashed. According to the learned advocate, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon. He submitted that the petitioner married Insha Khaleel @ Inchara, with her consent, in the presence of friends, well wishers and family members and is leading married life. He submitted that there being no material of whatsoever nature, in support of the allegations made in the complaint, the first respondent is wholly unjustified in registering the case and submitting FIR to the Magistrate. He further submitted that the petitioner is apprehending threat to his life and liberty, since, his wife, earlier belonged to a different religion and as the 2nd respondent and his supporters are influential and politically powerful, are likely to cause harm or harassment to the married couple.

5. Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned HCGP, submitted that the first respondent would investigate the case and submit final report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He submitted that the petition being premature is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. B. Lethif, learned advocate, submitted that in view of non-return of Miss Insha Khaleel, on 17.11.2014, from the College, the 2nd respondent having learned that the petitioner and his friends kidnapped and are forcing her to marry, lodged the complaint on 19.11.2014 and a case in Crime No. 342/2014 was registered by the first respondent. He submitted that the case requires investigation by the police, to find out, whether there is kidnapping or abduction or inducement of Insha Khaleel, to compel her marriage etc.

7. Perused the petition and considered the rival contentions. The point for consideration is, whether, the woman – Insha Khaleel, was abducted to, with the intension to compel her to marry against her wish or for the purposes appearing in S. 366 IPC?

8. In the earlier paragraphs, I have already adverted to certain factual details about the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner and Insha Khaleel, whose date of birth, as per the SSLC Marks Card, is 03.10.1995. As on 17.11.2014, Insha Khaleel was a major. The marriage solemnized on 19.11.2014 was published in “Jaya Kirana”, Kannada Newspaper. Insha Khaleel @ Inchara has notified both respondents about the solemnization of her marriage with the petitio