Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2853 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Sandhya And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babban Prasad Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri B.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to produce the corpus-petitioner before this Court and release her after recording the statement for going anywhere according to her wishes and quash the impugned order dated 6.8.2016 passed by C.J.M., Farrukhabad in case crime no. 518 of 2016 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station and district Farrukhabad.
On 15.2.2018 this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri B.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to produce the corpus-petitioner no.1, namely, Smt. Sandhya before this court on the date fixed by this Court and to set her at liberty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the FIR, the victim petitioner no.1 is a minor girl aged about 16 years, but as per the medical examination report she is aged about 17 yearsand in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband-petitioner no.2, namely, Sachin alias Aadiya alias Aadi who has already got himself bailed out, but the learned Magistrate on the basis of her High School Certificate according to which she was found to be minor about 15 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.
Issue notice to respondent no. 5 returnable within two weeks. Steps be taken within one week.
The respondent no. 4, Superintendent Nari Neketan, Etawah is directed to produce the corpus petitioner no.1-Smt. Sandhya before this Court on 7th March, 2018.
Copy of the order may be issued to learned A.G.A. free of cost for its compliance."
In compliance of this Court's order dated 15.2.2018, the corpus-petitioner Km. Sandhya has been produced by respondent no. 4 before this Court on 7.3.2018 and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her alleged husband Sachin @ Aadiya @ Aadi-petitioner no. 2.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 states that the corpus-petitioner no. 1 was minor on the date of offence as per the high school certificate but could not dispute the fact 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 view of the law laid down by 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 5, who is the mother of the corpus-petitioner no. 1 has also moved an application before the Magistrate concerned for her custody but the corpus-petitioner no. 1 refused to go with her.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that as per the statement of the corpus-petitioner, she voluntarily gone with Rahul and in view of the law laid by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi (Supra) and Smt. Renu Maurya (Supra), the corpus-petitioner is set at liberty to go in accordance with her own wishes. The impugned order dated 6.8.2016 passed by court below sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is hereby set aside.
The corpus petitioner shall be set at liberty by the respondent no. 4 to go according to her own wishes.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Shiraz