SITAWATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 as well as Mr. Rajen ­dra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2.

(2.) THE petitioner Smt. Sitawati through her next friend husband Mr. Sameer Arya, claims her illegal detention by respondent No. 3, on the ground that they have married to each other, whereas upon perusal of the record, I find that one First Information Report No. 340 of 2010, as Case Crime No. 431 of 2010, under section 364 IPC, has been registered at Police Sta ­tion Chinhat, district Lucknow, against unknown persons for missing of Km. Si ­tawati. Subsequently the complainant came to know that she has been kidnapped by Sameer, Waseem @ Bharti and his father Jameel Ahmad Siddiqui, on the basis of which the police came into motion and re ­covered the girl from their custody and produced before the Additional Chief Judi ­cial Magistrate-I, Lucknow. She was also medically examined. The medical certifi ­cate, High School certificate, marriage cer ­tificate as well as the religion transfer cer ­tificate were produced before the learned Magistrate. On the basis of the medical cer ­tificate which certifies her age as 17 years, ignoring the educational certificate, which certifies her date of birth as 1st of January, 1991, the learned Magistrate determined her as major, therefore, he set her free to go as per her own wish and accordingly dis ­posed of the matter.

(3.) SO far as the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is the basis for production of Sitawati, is concerned, I find that the learned Magistrate has committed manifest error in not acknowledging the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate of Mr. Sameer Ahmad. More so, the marriage certificate, which is based on the false affidavit sweared by Mr. Sameer Ahmad, cannot be said to be a valid one, rather it has been obtained fraudulently by fabricating the documents, therefore, the said certificate of marriage, being void, has no force in the eye of law. Thus, the peti ­tion lacks merit and is dismissed.