Court No. - 1
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2854 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Sonali (Corpus) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Rajesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashsih Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
As per office report dated 24.03.2018, notice issued to private respondent no. 5 has been served personally as per report of the C.J.M. Jhansi but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 5 to contest the matter.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 4 Superintendent (Matron), Naari Niketan, Kanpur to produce the corpus-petitioner namely Smt. Sonali W/o Arjun before this Court on date fixed or released the corpus in favour of petitioner Arjun and also quash the entire consequences arising out of order dated 30.11.2017 passed by Prabhari Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi in case Crime No. 78 of 2017, under Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station Sakrar, District Jhansi.
On 07.03.2018 this Court has passed the following order:-
"As per the Office report dated 6.3.2018 notice issued to respondent no. 5 has not been received back after service.
Await for the notice.
Heard Sri Rajesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A., who has accepted notice on behalf of the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Arjun, who has filed the present petition and claimed to be the husband of corpus-petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by respondent no. 5 for abduction and enticing away his daughter, i.e., the corpus-petitioner as the same was lodged against unknown person and the police had not concluded the investigation of the said F.I.R. till date. He submits that the corpus-petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has expressed her desire to go with Arjun.
It appears that in the order dated 15.2.2018, it has been inadvertently mentioned that Arjun has got himself bailed out in the F.I.R. which was lodged by respondent no. 5. The said fact is incorrect.
The corpus-petitioner, namely, Smt. Sonali has been produced by respondent no. 4 in police custody in compliance of this Court's order dated 15.2.2018 and on query being made she expressed her desire to go with Arjun her alleged husband.
On the next date, learned A.G.A. shall inform the Court about the result of investigation in the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 5.
The presence of corpus-petitioner, who is present in the Court today is hereby dispensed with unless otherwise directed by the Court. She shall be taken back to Nari Niketan and shall be kept there till the pendency of the present petition.
Await for the notice.
List on 27th March, 2018.
Copy of the order may be issued to learned A.G.A. free of cost for its compliance.
In the meanwhile, learned A.G.A. shall also inform respondent no. 5 about the pendency of the present petition before this Court."
The corpus-petitioner was produced on 07.03.2018 in compliance of Court's order dated 15.02.2018 by respondent no. 4 in police custody and on a query was made, she had stated that she wants to go with her husband Arjun, who has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Adhar Card, the petitioner-corpus is a major girl aged about 20 years and she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband, namely Arjun, who has already got himself bailed out but the learned Magistrate on the basis of an application moved by the petitioner-corpus sent her to Nari Niketan where she is at present confined. It is not a case of taking away or enticing away the victim, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate to keep the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is bad in the eyes of law. 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 view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 passed by court below sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is hereby set aside.
Let the corpus -petitioner Smt. Sonali who was produced before this Court on 15.02.2018 be set at liberty by respondent no. 4 to go according to her wishes.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 A.K.Verma