Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing release of the petitioner to allow her to live as per her wish.
2. Short affidavit has been filed by Sri Virendra Singh Yadav, Senior Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Purwa, District Unnao which is taken on record.
3. In deference to order of the Court dated 22.01.2016, respondent no.6 has been served. He is present in Court. The petitioner has been produced in Court.
4. From the facts emanating from the record, it transpires that the petitioner got married with Vinod Gautam in a temple on 28.09.2015. Photographs have been placed on record in evidence of marriage.
5. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.6 initiated criminal proceedings because he did not accept the marriage of the petitioner vide Case Crime No.0687 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Purwa, District Unnao. It has been further pleaded that the detenue and her husband were caught by the police on 23.12.2015, when they returned to their village. Husband of the petitioner has been sent to jail.
6. The petition has been filed through father-in-law of the petitioner because there is no one else to seek release of the petitioner from respondent no.3, Sanvedna Mahila Alpavas Unnao.
7. The prosecuting agency admits that the medical age of the petitioner/victim of offence has been found to be 18 years. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix/petitioner/victim of offence has not supported the prosecution case. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record as Annexure-SCA-3.
8. Annexure-SCA-4 is stated to be a further statement of the victim, in which she admits that "she has physical relation with Vinod". The Investigating Officer has tried to develop a case that on account of statement under SCA-4 Section 376 I.P.C. has also been invoked, alongwith Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
9. The petitioner has been questioned in Court.
10. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner has attained age of discretion and is capable of taking decision in regard to her future, and in regard to her welfare. The petitioner has clearly stated that her father respondent no.6 is maintaining another lady, therefore, the petitioner has refused to go and live in her father's house. The petitioner has stated that she wants to go and live with her father-in-law, the deponent through whom the petition has been filed.
11. Respondent no.6, who appeared in Court has also been questioned and has been confronted with facts. Respondent no.6 has not been able to say anything in regard to stand of the petitioner.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; the medical age of the petitioner; as noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without any legal cause.
13. Respondent no.3 is directed to release the petitioner forthwith and allow to live as per her own wish.
14. The petition is accordingly allowed.
15. Let a copy of this order be released under the signature of Bench Secretary.
Order Date :- 1.2.2016 Jitendra