Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.
(Oral)
1. This is another case in which the alleged victim of offence has approached this Court with the assertion that she has neither been kidnapped nor abducted, rather is married to the accused/petitioner no.1, yet the investigating agency is insisting that she had been kidnapped and abducted.
2. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No.0128 of 2018 dated 18.05.2018, under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich.
3. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court, which is taken on record.
Shri Shiv Pal Singh, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3/complainant, who is father of petitioner no.2, the prosecutrix/victim of offence. However, counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the State Shri S.P. Singh and Shri Shiv Pal Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent no.3/complainant.
5. We have carefully gone through the contents of the impugned first information report and other documents appended with the petition, and the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the investigating agency.
Gist of the allegation made by respondent no.3, Ram Pal Nai in the impugned F.I.R. is that his daughter aged 15 years had been enticed away by petitioner no.1/accused on the intervening night of 17/18.5.2018.
It has been narrated in the impugned F.I.R. that Susheel Kumar has relatives living in the village. They used to visit the house of each other.
While going, daughter of the complainant had taken away Rs.10,000/- in cash and Silver ornaments worn on feet.
6. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner no.2 was in love with petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.2 willingly got married to petitioner no.1. The marriage, however, has not been accepted by respondent no.3. In abuse of process of the law and process of the Court, impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated, although ingredients of offence under Sections 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 361 and 362 Indian Penal Code are not satisfied.
It has been argued that both the petitioners are Hindus, therefore, at best the marriage would be voidable, in case it is concluded that petitioner no.2 has not attained age of 18 years.
7. So as to demonstrate that the ingredients of the offences invoked against the accused are not satisfied, learned counsel has referred to the statement of petitioner no.2 - the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., placed on record as Annexure-2 with short counter affidavit dated 28.07.2018 sworn by the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn attention of the Court towards the bone age of the victim/petitioner no.2 which as per Annexure - 1 filed with the short counter affidavit has been found to be 16 to 17 years.
It has been pleaded that the communication purportedly issued by Headmaster, Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dallapurwa, Bahraich dated 09.07.2018, placed on record as Annexure - 3 with the short counter affidavit, cannot possibly be construed as evidence of age of the prosecutrix. The core issue before the Court is the age of the prosecutrix. The basis of making entry in the admission register by the Headmaster has not even been produced by the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, document Annexure - 3 (supra) would have no evidentially value viz-a-viz. age of the victim of offence. It has been contended that in such cases where the conduct of the prosecutrix clearly speaks of consensual relations and other circumventing circumstances, margin of two years in bone age of the person on the higher side is required to be given by the Court.
It has been pointed out that the consensual relations of the victim stand demonstrated from the fact that she has not only filed this petition as petitioner no.2 for quashing of the impugned first information report but has also supported it with her affidavit. It has also been pointed out that while leaving the house of her father, she took jewellery and cash which would also demonstrate that petitioner no.2, the alleged victim, was a consenting party. Considering the facts and circumstances collectively, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered that petitioner no.2 had been kidnapped, or abducted by petitioner no.1, her husband, with whom she claims to be married.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued that no doubt the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms has stated that she was a consenting party and had not been abducted or kidnapped, however date of birth of the victim has been found to be 02.04.2003 vide Annexure - 3 (supra). In such circumstances, the victim would only be 15 years of age on the date of incident (18.05.2018).
In such circumstances, ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code are satisfied. The accused are required to be prosecuted and convicted.
9. We have considered the contents of the evidences collected in the course of investigation and filed with the short counter affidavit on behalf of the investigating agency in context of contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and the complainant.
Shalendri Devi, petitioner no.2 is stated to be the victim of offence, the kidnapee/abductee. Statement of the said victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the course of investigation which has been placed on record by the investigating agency as Annexure-2 of the short counter affidavit.
In the statement the prosecutrix has stated in clear terms that she is illiterate. She does not remember the month or the date, however the incident is two months old. At about 10 - 11 PM, the prosecutrix of her own will went to the house of Sushil Kumar - petitioner no.1. On the second day, they went to Lucknow where they got married in a temple, thereafter, they came back. It has further been stated by the prosecutrix that her father got a false case registered.
10. Statement of petitioner no.2 clearly makes it evident that she had neither been induced nor coerced by the accused to go with him. Element of abduction or kidnapping, therefore, cannot be invoked in the conduct of the accused.
11. There is another dimension of the case. The victim of offence/kidnapee/abductee Shalendri Devi is petitioner no.2 and has approached this Court alongwith the accused for quashing of the proceedings. The victim/prosecutrix has supported the petition with her own affidavit. This factor would also persuade this Court to conclude that petitioner no.2 is not the victim of offence at the hands of the accused.
12. The circumstance that while leaving her parental house, the prosecutrix took alongwith her some cash and ornaments is also indicative of her consensual relations with the accused, petitioner no.1.
13. Collectively considering all the above noted factors leave us in no doubt that petitioner no.2, the victim/kidnapee/abductee voluntarily and of her free will went with petitioner no.1 and got married to him.
14. The case of the prosecuting agency hinges on the circumstance that the victim/prosecutrix/petitioner no.2 is a minor as per document placed on record as Annexure - 3 with the short counter affidavit.
On perusal of Annexure-3 it becomes evident that Headmaster, Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dallapurwa, Bahraich addressed a communication dated 09.07.2018 to In-Charge, Police Chowki Vaivahi, Police Station Khairighat, Bahraich.
The gist of the communication is that a letter had been received from police chowki in regard to Shalendri Devi. It has been stated that Shalendri Devi daughter of Rampal Nai passed 8th class in March, 2017. The date of birth as mentioned in the Admission Register entered at Serial No.72 is 02.04.2003.
15. The Investigating Agency in its wisdom got the ossification test/ bone test conducted. Petitioner no.2, the victim, has been found to be 16 - 17 years of age as per the document placed on record as Annexure - 1 with the short counter affidavit.
16. We are faced with a situation wherein Annexure - 3 filed with the short counter affidavit depicts the date of birth of the victim as 02.04.2003. The date of occurrence is said to be 17/18.05.2018. Consequently, as per Annexure - 3 (supra), age of the victim would be about 15 years.
On the other hand, the investigating agency got the medical age of the victim determined through ossification test. According to Annexure - 1 filed with the short counter affidavit, the age of the victim has been found to be 16 to 17 years. There is, thus, a clear discrepancy in the age of the victim of offence as on the date of incident.
17. In cases such as the present one, the bone age/age determined through ossification test can be accepted. In this regard we find support from judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018. The following has been held :-
"Leave granted.
The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the defensibility of the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 52290/2017. The said petition was filed for issuance of a direction to produce the present petitioner no. 1 before the Court on the foundation that she is the wife of the petitioner no. 2 and has been kept in illegal detention by the respondent no. 3.
It is necessary to mention here that at the behest of the respondent no. 4 - the father of the petitioner no. 1, an FIR was lodged under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended before the High Court that the petitioner no. 1 was about 19 years of age and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2018.04.26 that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the 16:32:11 IST Reason:
Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she had stated that she had entered into wedlock with the petitioner no. 2. CA 4532/2018 @ SLP(C) 8001/2018 On behalf of the contesting respondent no. 3, a certificate issued by the Secondary School Examination (C.B.S.E.), showing the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 as 25.9.2003 was filed. The High Court computed the age and came to the conclusion that she was 13 years and 8 months old, and on that basis, treated her as a minor. However, she expressed an unequivocal desire not to accompany her parents. The High Court directed that she would be allowed to reside in the Nari Niketan, Allahabad.
When the matter was listed before this Court on 6.4.2018, this Court directed the authorities to produce the petitioner no.1 on 23.4.2018. On 23.4.2018, it was thought apposite that she should be examined by the concerned department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and a further direction was issued that she should be allowed to reside alongwith escorts in the U.P. Bhawan, New Delhi, which was acceded to by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned AAG for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
We have received the report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, which has examined the petitioner no. 1. The radiological examination and the final report/opinion on the same reads as follows:-
CA 4532/2018 @ SLP(C) 8001/2018 "Radiological Examination X-Rays advised for age estimation:- X-Ray Medial End of Clavicle, Sternum AP & Lat. view, Pelvis AP view, L.S. Spine -Lat. View, Wrist & Elbow-AP & Lat. View, Shoulder-AP view, were done in Radiology Department.
Report of Radiological Examination- All epiphysis at elbow, shoulder and wrist joint fused, suggestive of age > 16.5 years. Fusion of iliac crest epiphysis, suggestive of age 19 + 1 years.
Medial end of clavicle not fused, suggestive of age 22-27 years.
S1 of sacrum not fused with S2, suggestive of age 17-24 years.
Imp.:-Estimated Bone age is between 19-24 years. FINAL REPORT/OPINION:
Considering the findings of physical, dental & radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss Suhani is between 19-24 years." In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no. 1 is a major, and the High Court was not correct in directing her to stay in the Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner no. 1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner no. 2, who is her husband.
CA 4532/2018 @ SLP(C) 8001/2018 In view of our conclusion that she is an adult and she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner no. 2 and entered into wedlock, the criminal proceedings initiated under section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 2 stands quashed. We have passed this order of quashing the proceedings to do complete justice.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
( Emphasised by us )
18. On a perusal and consideration of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it becomes evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. However, when the facts disclosed that the offence had not been committed, even the criminal proceedings were quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the fact that the victim had voluntarily gone with the boy and entered into a wedlock. Criminal proceedings initiated in such circumstances were quashed while taking into account the bone age of the victim and desire of the victim not to accompany her parents. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat similar.
19. When the court relies on bone age, the court can take into account two years on either side of the age as determined vide such tests. In this regard, we are fortified by judgement dated 3.8.2018 rendered by this court in Writ Petition No.21284 (H.C.) of 2018 : Deepa Vs. State of U.P. and others. Relevant portions of the judgement read as under ( Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 ) :-
"7. In (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 681, Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh Alias Chhotu Singh and Another, the following has been held in Paragraph 13 (relevant portion):
"13. Even if we had to consider the medical report, it is now well known that an error of two years in determining the age is possible. In Jaya Mala v. Government of J and K, this Court held: (SCC p. 541, para 9) "9.....However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side."
(emphasised by us)
8. In (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 538, Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, the following has been held in Paragraph 9 (relevant portion):
"9. Detenu was arrested and detained on October 18, 1981. The report by the expert is dated May 3, 1982, that is nearly seven months after the date of detention; Growing in age day by day is an involuntary process and the anatomical changes in the structure of the body continuously occur. Even on normal calculation, if seven months are deducted from the approximate age opined by the expert in October, 1981 detenu was around 17 years of age, consequently the statement made in the petition turns out to be wholly true. However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. Undoubtedly, therefore, the detenu was a young school going boy. It equally appears that there was some upheaval in the educational institutions. This young school going boy may be enthusiastic about the students' rights and on two different dates he marginally crossed the bounds of law. It passes comprehension to believe that he can be visited with drastic measure of preventive detention. One cannot treat young people, may be immature, may be even slightly misdirected, may be a little more enthusiastic, with a sledge hammer. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case the detention order was wholly unwarranted and deserved to be quashed."
(emphasised by us)
9. In (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 192, Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi), the following has been held in Paragraph 20 (relevant portion):
20. The medical report and the deposition of the Radiologist cannot predict the exact date of birth, rather it gives an idea with a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. In Jaya Mala v. Government of J & K, this Court held (SCC p. 541, para 9).
14. In a case of this nature, thus, where the delinquent was examined by two different medical boards, who on two different dates have reached the identical opinion, viz, the age of the appellant between 18 and 19 years, and, thus, resulting in two different conclusions, a greater difficulty arises for the court to arrive at a correct decision. For the said purpose, the court may resort to some sort of hypothesis, as no premise is available on the basis whereof a definitive conclusion can be arrived at.
15. It is in the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the test which may be applied herein would be to take the average of the age as opined by both the medical boards. Even applying that test, the age of the appellant as on 01.04.2001 would be above 18 years.
16. We, however, hasten to add that we have taken recourse to the said method only for the purpose of this case and we do not intend to lay down any general proposition of law in this behalf. As indicated hereinbefore, in so doing, we have also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had filed documents in support of his claim that he was a juvenile but the same were found to be forged and fabricated which is itself a factor to show that he was making attempts to obtain a benefit to which he might not have been entitled to."
(emphasised by us)
11. In (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385, Alamelu and Another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, the following has been held in Paragraphs 39, 40 and 42 to 49 (relevant portion):
"39. We will first take up the issue with regard to the age of the girl. The High Court has based its conclusion on the transfer certificate, Ext.P16 and the certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran, Radiologist, Ext.P4 and Ext.P5.
40. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ext.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.
42. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit 1 , observed as follows: (SCC pp. 618-19, para 14).
"14.....The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined..........Merely because the documents Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exts. 8, 9,10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted."
(emphasised by us)
43. The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. B irendra Kumar Jaiswal where this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.75, para 16) "16......The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue"."
44. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer certificate can not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl.
45. In fixing the age of the girl as below 18 years, the High Court relied solely on the certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran. However, the High Court failed to notice that in his evidence before the Court, PW8, the X-ray Expert had clearly stated in the cross-examination that on the basis of the medical evidence, generally, the age of an individual could be fixed approximately. He had also stated that it is likely that the age may vary from individual to individual. The doctor had also stated that in view of the possible variations in age, the certificate mentioned the possible age between one specific age to another specific age. On the basis of the above, it would not be possible to give a firm opinion that the girl was definitely below 18 years of age.
46. In addition, the High Court failed to consider the expert evidence given by PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar, who had medically examined the victim. In his cross-examination, he had clearly stated that a medical examination would only point out the age approximately with a variation of two years. He had stated that in this case, the age of the girl could be from 17 to 19 years. This margin of error in age has been judicially recognized by this Court in the case of Jaya Mala Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir. In the aforesaid judgment, it is observed as follows: (SCC p. 541, para 9) "9...However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side."
47. We are of the opinion, in the facts of this case, the age of the girl could not have been fixed on the basis of the transfer certificate. There was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe the correctness of the date of birth as recorded in the transfer certificate. The expert evidence does not rule out the possibility of the girl being a major. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the girl was a minor, at the relevant date.
48.We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. held as follows: (SCC p. 595, para 38) "38. The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim Or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted." (emphasis supplied)
49. In such circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the High Court without examining the factual and legal issues has unnecessarily rushed to the conclusion that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction. There is no satisfactory evidence to indicate that she was a minor."
(Emphasised by us)
20. From the above extracted portion of judgment rendered in Deepa's case (supra), we find that two conclusions have been drawn. Firstly, transfer certificate issued by a government school, duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence as defined under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, admissibility of such a document would not be of much evidentially value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentially value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.
Mere proof of the documents produced does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth mentioned in the document could be proved only by admissible evidence.
21. Such document can be used for obtaining appointment; for contesting elections; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum.
However, so as to prove the contents of the certificate in regard to age, as noted above, the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is required to be examined. The basis of recording the date of birth in the document is required to be proved.
Document Annexure - 3 (supra), which is a communication by the Headmaster in regard to Admission Register reflecting the date of birth of the victim as 02.04.2003, cannot be taken into account because the contents of the documents viz. the admission register have not been proved. In fact, the admission register has not been taken in possession by the investigating officer. Annexure - 3 is only a communication by the Headmaster in regard to an entry in the admission register. Under the circumstances, Annexure - 3 would not be evidence admissible for the purposes of determining that the victim was born on 02.04.2003.
22. The second principle that has been considered in the above extracted portion of the judgment in Deepa's case (supra) on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments is that if medical age/bone age/medical report has to be considered, the error of two years on either side in determining age is possible.
Applying the principles as laid down and noted above in context of the bone age of the prosecutrix viz. 16 - 17 years, this Court is of the opinion that margin of two years on the higher side is required to be given. The prosecutrix has attained the age of majority and therefore, the action of the accused would not be covered under mischief envisaged by Section 363 Indian Penal Code.
23. When the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C; the conduct of the victim/petitioner no.2 as noticed above; the fact that the victim has approached this Court for quashing of the impugned first information report, coupled with her age, as discussed above, we are left in no doubt that ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 361 and 362 Indian Penal Code are not satisfied. The impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated for malafide reasons because the father of the victim did not accept the marriage alliance of petitioner no.2 with petitioner no.1. In fact, petitioner no.2, the victim, had never been kidnapped or abducted.
24. If the case is sent for trial, it would be an exercise in futility insomuch as, statement of the victim/prosecutrix would be of paramount relevance or importance. The victim has made it clear by virtue of filing this petition that she will not support the prosecution, as has been clarified in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The father of the victim cannot determine whether the victim has been kidnapped/abducted or not. In that regard only the statement of the victim is relevant. The victim has demonstrated that she had not been kidnapped/abducted.
25. We have also taken into account the fact that petitioners no.2 & 1 are Hindus. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of a minor is voidable, and not void per se. In case, petitioner no.2 is considered to be a minor, by virtue of this petition she has asserted her right as the wife of petitioner no.1; and has not repudiated the marriage. In such circumstances, even marriage cannot be considered to be illegal or void for the purposes of considering the issue under adjudication.
26. In the considered opinion of the Court, continuance of the impugned proceedings would result in abuse of process of the law and process of the Court. Continuance of such proceedings, in the face of the statement of the victim of offence, as noticed above and her age would result in causing manifest injustice.
27. In view of the above, the petition is allowed.
28. First Information Report No.0128 dated 18.05.2018, under Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich and all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed.
29. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to Station House Officer, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich and Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bahraich.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Nishant/Shukla