Habeas Corpus No. 295 of 2015. Case: Renu Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Habeas Corpus No. 295 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Arvind Kumar Yadav, Adv. and For Respondents: Govt. Advocate |
| Judges | Ajai Lamba and Ashok Pal Singh, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 164; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 361, 363, 366; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3, 4 |
| Judgement Date | September 29, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing order dated 27.7.2015 passed by Special Judge/POCSO Act/Additional District Judge, Court No.-8, Raibareli in Case Crime No.-202 of 2015 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kheeron, District Raibarely.
-
Gist of the issue raised by way of this petition is recorded in order dated 21.9.2015, which reads as under:-
"1. It appears that in context of criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 5 under Case Crime No. 202 of 105, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section of 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kheeron, District Raibareli, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate. The petitioner stated that she did not want to go in the company of her parents.
-
Considering the date of birth from school certificate, the petitioner has been confined in Nari Niketan, respondent No. 2. From the order, it does not appear that the medical age of the petitioner has been determined.
-
Station House Officer, Police Station Kheeron, District Raibareli is directed to file his counter affidavit alongwith evidence collected in context of criminal proceedings(supra).
-
Issue notice to respondent No. 5 returnable on 29.9.2015.
-
List this case on 29.9.2015.
-
Respondent No. 2 is directed to produce the petitioner in court on the next date of listing. Respondent No. 5 shall also remain present in court. Respondent No. 5 be served through Station House Officer, Kheeron, District Raibareli.
-
State Counsel to ensure compliance."
-
Sri Avdhesh Shukla Advocate, has put in appearance for respondent No.-5 and states that age of the detenue as per school certificate is 17 years and 2 months. Under the circumstances, the petitioner be not released from protection home.
-
Affidavit has been filed by Sri Raghvendra Pratap Rawat, Station Officer, Police Station Kheeron District Raibareli. It has been stated that in the course of investigation of the criminal proceedings, statement of the petitioner/detenue has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The statement has been placed on record as Annexure-SCA-3. In the statement it has been stated by the victim of alleged offence that she is about 19 years of age. She is a voter. She is in love with Rinku. The parents of the detenue are not happy and give her beatings for that reason. It has further been stated by the detenue that the parents of the detenue were abetting the petitioner to commit suicide. It has been clearly stated that she went with Rinku of her free will in Rajasthan. There, they have contracted marriage. Rinku had no role to play in detenue leaving her home. Name of Rinku has been wrongly taken as an accused in the criminal proceedings. Detenue had not been kidnapped. It has further been stated that she wanted to stay with Rinku.
-
Perusal of Annexure-SCA-2, indicates that the detenue/petitioner was medically examined. Her age has been found to be about 18 years.
-
Somewhat similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in case titled "Smt. Poonam Versus State of U.P. & Others" decided on 17.9.2015, by this Court (this Bench). The following is the text of relevant portion:-
"17. The petitioner apparently has attained the age of discretion, as also age of majority. On questioning by this Court, the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner refuses to go with her mother while saying that she feels threatened.
-
We are faced with a situation wherein there are various inputs in regard to the age of the petitioner, as noticed above. Somewhat similar facts came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2015) 13 SCC 376, Juhi Devi Versus State of Bihar and Others. In the judgment, the following has been held in paragraph Nos.-2 and 3:-
2. The petitioner herein is alleged to have married another person of her age and the 5th respondent herein, the father of the petitioner, objected to the said marriage. It seems that the petitioner had eloped with that person and the father of the petitioner-5th respondent, has filed a complaint and the petitioner was produced before the C.J.M., Patna. The petitioner claims that she was major and voluntarily left with her husband. The father of petitioner alleged that the petitioner was a minor and the question of age was referred to a Medical Board. The Medical Board opined that as on 17.05.2003, the petitioner must have been aged between 16 and 17 years. However, the father of the petitioner produced two certificates before the Revisional Court and contended that her date of birth is 12.10.1985 and she has not attained majority. However, the medical report shows that she must have been aged more than 16 years, even on 17.05.2003. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that she must have attained majority and her stay at the remand home would not be in the interest of justice and we think that her continued stay at the remand home would be detrimental and she would be in a better environment by living with the person whom she had allegedly married.
3. In the circumstances, we direct that the Respondent 3 Superintendent, Rajkiya Nari Uttar Raksha Sansthan, Gaighat, Patna to release the petitioner from the remand home forthwith. The petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial