Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 28153 of 2015. Case: Deepa Ram and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 28153 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ravi Prakash Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: A.G.A. |
| Judges | Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Vijay Lakshmi, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 164; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 363, 366 |
| Citation | 2015 (5) ADJ 702 |
| Judgement Date | May 15, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner No. 2 has come up for the release of the petitioner No. 1 contending that she is his married wife and who is major. Reliance has been placed on the medical examination report dated 8.11.2013 where the approximate age of the victim - petitioner No. 1 is stated to be about 17 and a half years.
-
On this calculation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the custody of the said petitioner is unlawful and she should be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner No. 2 who is her lawfully wedded husband.
-
Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. previously in Case Crime No. 536 of 2013 and then subsequently in Case Crime No. 57 of 2015.
-
The necessity of these two statements arose on account of the fact that earlier the petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have eloped with the petitioner No. 2 whereupon an FIR was lodged being Case Crime No. 536 of 2013. In the said case, the statement of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded where she alleges to have gone voluntarily with the petitioner No. 2 and even in that statement she had alleged that she was 17 and a half years. The statement was recorded on 11.11.2013. After recording of the said statement, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.11.2013 handed over the custody of the petitioner No. 1 to her mother. The said order has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It would be relevant to mention that in the said custody order, the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 15.1.1999 as per her educational certificate.
-
Again the petitioner No. 1 left her parental home and went with petitioner No. 2 as a result whereof Case Crime No. 57 of 2015 has been lodged under Section 363/366 IPC.
-
After the second FIR, the petitioner No. 1 was again taken into custody and produced before the Magistrate where she gave her statement under Section 164 on 15.4.2015. The statement again has been made against the prosecution where she has disclosed her age as 19 years. The concerned Magistrate has thereafter passed an order of custody again relying on the same educational certificate as in the previous case where the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is recorded as 15.1.1999, and this time she has been sent to Nariniketan Mathura.
-
The petitioner No. 1 therefore is in the custody of the Superintendent, Nariniketan, Mathura, hence...
To continue reading
Request your trial