LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-181

REENA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On May 24, 2012
REENA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri. Pradeep Kumar VI, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sudhir Mehrotra, the learned A.G.A. for the State. The petitioner Smt. Reena has filed the present petition seeking direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Maharajganj as also to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus' to the respondent to produce Smt. Reena before this Court.

(2.) Before we issue any direction it is pertinent to point out that Case Crime No. 1610 of 2011 was registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 etc. I.P.C. by the father of the petitioner alleging that petitioner was taken and enticed away by Rabdullah son of Habibullah in the night of 3.3.2012 alongwith ornaments valued at Rs. 10,000 and cash in the sum of Rs. 31,000. The son of the informant who was coming from somewhere met the accused of the present petition and stopped them but the accused brandished a knife and threatened him of being killed.

(3.) It appears that the lady, petitioner was apprehended by the police and was produced before the Sub Division Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj. The father of the lady was also present In the Court. He filed a petition seeking custody of his daughter. The statement of the petitioner was recorded and that of her father was also recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj. In her statement the petitioner, Smt. Reena stated that she was major and she had eloped with accused Rabdullah and had gone into his house to reside there. The father of the petitioner, Hari Lal, in his statement also stated that his daughter had eloped with Rabdullah on 3.3.2011 and refused to take the petitioner with him. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found that the date of birth of the petitioner, Smt. Reena, as recorded in the certificate was 3.4.1998. As such, she was only 13 years of age when her father was not ready to take her back who was desirous that her custody be authorised to the Nari Niketan Jaitpura, district Varanasi.