1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner Hemlata @ Hema was originally married to Vinod Kumar Panchal and out of their wedlock, one child Lokendra was born. Vinod Kumar Panchal died on 10/9/2004. After the death of her husband Vinod Kumar Panchal, petitioner was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. In January, 2007, she decided to marry with Ghanshyam with whom she alongwith her minor child are living happily. Her father-in-law of the first marriage however now lodged a first information report against the petitioner and on that basis, the police is bent on arresting the petitioner.

3. Issue notice, Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate accepts notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2006(5) SCC 266 : AIR 2006 SC 2522 and on the strength of that judgment, has argued that in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that petitioner was a major girl, held that she was free to marry with any one she likes inasmuch as, young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actual committed on them. Such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and observing thus, the proceedings of the criminal case pending against them was ordered to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the course of investigation, the police has decided to add the petitioner as one of the accused and she apprehends that in case, she goes to the police, she shall be arrested.

6. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, prima-facie, it appears that the FIR for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 379 IPC for the alleged date of incident i.e. 20/1/2007 was lodged on 7/8/2007. Moreover, the contents of the FIR indicate that it has been lodged on the basis of a complaint being sent to the police by the court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. It is alleged that accused had taken the petitioner and her minor child with them on the premise that they would keep them for about two months and will send back. The statement of the petitioner recorded before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bamanvas which is available on record indicates that petitioner married to Ghanshyam out of her free will and that she has not taken any belongings from her in-laws in marriage and that she wanted to reside with Ghanshyam.

7. Prima-facie, it does not appear to be a case of abduction. Petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the investigating officer as and when she is called upon to do so.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is set at liberty to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police Bharatpur who shall ensure that an impartial and fair investigation of the matter shall be done and her husband and petitioner shall not be arrested and shall not be subjected to undue harassment only because she is widow and decided to contact the second marriage.Writ Petition allowed.

*******