Court No. - 1
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2847 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Sunil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
As per the Office report dated 28.3.2018, notice issued to respondent no.6 has been served personally to him.
Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no.6 to contest the matter even in the revised reading of the list.
From perusal of the record, it appears that victim has already been released by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2018, which is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashsih Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 4 to produce the corpus-petitioner before this Court and release her after recording the statement for going anywhere according to her wishes.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the medical examination report, the petitioner no. 1-corpus is a major girl aged about 20 years and in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband-petitioner no. 2, namely, Rahul, who has already got himself bailed out but the learned Magistrate on the basis of high school certificate produced by respondent no. 5 according to which she is stated to be aged about 15 and half years, sent her to Nari Niketan where she is at present confined. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323 and Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128.
In compliance of this Court's order dated 13.02.2018, the corpus-petitioner Km. Pooja has been produced by respondent no. 4 before this Court today and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her husband Rahul and Rahul who has filed the present petition is also identified by his counsel present in Court.
As per office report 26.02.2018, notice was issued to respondent no. 6 who is father of the victim has not been received so far Let the corpus -petitioner Smt. Pooja shall be taken back to Nari Niketan from where she shall set at liberty by respondent no. 4 to go with Rahul, who undertakes through his counsel that they would appear on the next date along with child as the father of the corpus (respondent no. 6) has not been heard.
List this mater on 14.03.2018."
Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 14.3.2018, the following order was passed which is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
As per office report dated 13.03.2018 notice to respondent no. 6 has not received back after service.
Await for notice.
The Corpus Pooja along with her minor child and husband Rahul petitioner No.2 appeared before this Court in compliance of the Court's order dated 27.02.2018 and has been identified by his counsel.
List this matter again on 29.03.2018.
The presence of the petitioner No.1 Corpus, petitioner No.2 husband of the corpus along with her child is hereby dispensed with unless otherwise directed by this court.
Office is directed to submit report regarding service of notice upon respondent No.6 by the next date of listing.
In the meanwhile, learned A.G.A. shall also inform respondent no. 6 about the pendency of the present petition before this Court."
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account aforesaid fact that the corpus-petitioner has already been released by this Court and she is living with her alleged husband Rahul, the impugned order dated 24.6.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Member Bal Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan, Azad Nagar, Moradabad is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Shashi Kant,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 29.3.2018/NS