SAMEEDUL NISHA MOHAMMED HAROON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard in detail. When the petitions were heard earlier the learned members of Child Welfare Committee were also present in the Court. With a view to appreciate the submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the petitions in brief.

(2.) CRIMINAL Writ Petition No.49 of 2009 has been filed for challenging the judgment and order dated 15th October 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner claims to be the grandmother of one Heena Iqbal Khan @ Rubina Sikandar Khan (hereinafter referred to as "the said Heena"). It appears that on 10th October 2008 the Police raided a premises known as Hotel Gujarat Gaurav. It was alleged that certain persons were involved in prostitution in the said Hotel. Four persons were arrested on 11th October 2008 and the said Heena along with four other victim girls were picked-up by the Police. The accused as well as the victims were produced by the concerned Police Officer on 11th October 2008 before the learned Magistrate. In the remand report as well as a separate report submitted on the same day by the police officer, the age of Heena was disclosed as 18 years. In the separate report the police officer referred to five victims. On the said separate report, the learned Magistrate directed that the victim girls be referred to a hospital for medical check-up and after the medical check-up they may be produced before him. Till then he directed that the victims should be kept in protection home. There is a further order passed by the learned Magistrate on 15th October 2008. In the said further order the learned Judge observed that the medical report shows that the said Heena was between 17 to 18 years of age and no one had come forward to take custody of the said Heena. The learned Judge, therefore, directed that the said Heena be sent to the Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the said Committee") for further enquiry and order. It appears that thereafter the present petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate on 22nd December 2008 praying that she may be given the custody of her grand daughter Heena. On the said application the learned Magistrate passed an order on 22nd December 2008 directing that the applicant shall be presented before the said Committee for necessary orders. In the present petition, as stated earlier, the challenge is to the order dated 15th October 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate by which the said Heena was referred to the said Committee. Reliance is placed on certain documents annexed to the petition for contending that the present age of the said Heena is 20 years. It is submitted that as there is no enquiry held under sub section 2 of section 17 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the PITA") and as the said Heena was major when she was produced before the learned Magistrate, she may be forthwith released.

(3.) IN support of Writ Petition No.49 of 2009, it is submitted that the said Heena had already attained majority and there are documents placed on record to that effect. It is submitted that the said Heena could not have been sent to the said Committee without there being any enquiry as regards her age. It is submitted that going by the order dated 15th October 2008 now the said Heena has now attained the age of majority and, therefore, she deserves to be released immediately.