VIVEK CHANDRA BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 1.2.2013 and 4.2.2013 in application No. 12 of 2013 and also the subsequent order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chandauli in case Crime No. 02 of 2013 State v. Vivekand also praying for a direction to the respondent No. 5 to hand over the girl Sonal petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 who claims himself to be the husband of girl Sonal. In brief the facts giving rise to the present controversy are like this:

(2.) An FIR was lodged against the petitioner Vivek alongwith some other co-accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that one girl Km. Sonal had been enticed away by the petitioner No. 1 of this case. It seems that the petitioner approached this Court in order to get the FIR quashed. The Division Bench after hearing the matter passed an order on 17.1.2013. A number of directions were given vide this order. It was also directed that the girl Sonal shall be produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate who shall get her medically examined in order to ascertain her age. It was further ordered that depending upon the findings arrived regarding her age some other consequential orders including appropriate orders regarding her custody shall be passed by the J.M. It appears that as a follow up action, the concerned J.M. heard the matter and got Sonal medically examined according to which her age was found to be about 19 years and above 18 years. It transpires from the record that during the proceedings that took place before the J.M. the father of the girl produced the high school certificate of the girl indicating her date of birth to be 25.5.96. Reckoning her age on the basis of the high school certificate she was estimated to be a minor by the J.M.

(3.) The J.M. has also recorded her statement in which she expressed her unwillingness to go alongwith her father. In fact she informed the Court to have willingly contracted marriage with petitioner No. 1 and denied all the allegations of coercion exercised against her. In the light of the finding of minority arrived at by the J.M. and in view of her complete disinclination to go alongwith her father, the J.M. concerned thought it fit to send her to Nari Niketan.