Court No. - 1
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2846 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Saraswati @ Pinki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Sri R.K.S.Parmar, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K.S.Parmar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
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 Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 3 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 petitioner submits that as per the medical examination report, the petitioner-corpus is a major girl aged about 18-19 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband, namely Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram, who has already got himself bailed out but the learned Magistrate on the basis of academic record produced by respondent no.4 sent her to Nari Niketan where she is at present confined. It is not a case of taking away or enticing away the victim. As per her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she voluntarily eloped with Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram and has married her, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate to keep the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243. 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 12.02.2018, the corpus- petitioner Km. Saraswati @ Pinki has been produced by respondent no. 3 before this Court today and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her husband Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram and Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram who has filed the present petition is also identified by his counsel Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla present in Court.
As per office report 26.02.2018, notice was issued to respondent no. 4 who is father of the victim has not been received so far.
Let the corpus -petitioner Smt. Saraswati @ Pinki shall be taken back to Nari Niketan from where she shall set at liberty by respondent no. 3 to go with Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram, who undertakes through his counsel that they would appear on the next date along with child as the father of the corpus (respondent no. 4) has not been heard.
List this mater on 14.03.2018."
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the corpus-petitioner has already been released by this Court and she is living with her alleged husband -Ram Kumar @ Chet Ram, the impugned order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Court below sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Shashi Kant,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 29.3.2018/NS