The court allowed a habeas corpus petition setting aside orders detaining the petitioner in Nari Niketan. Finding the petitioner willing to go with her alleged husband, the court granted liberty to her.
Impugned orders setting petitioner in Nari Niketan set aside; petitioner set at liberty to go according to her wishes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2911 of 2018
Petitioner :- Preeti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neel Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
As per the Office report dated 17.3.2018, respondent no. 4 has refused to accept the notice issued to him in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5.3.2018, hence the Court proceed to hear the dispose of the petition.
Heard Sri N.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the orders dated 6.12.2017 and 8.12.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 4, Mathura in case crime no. 1241 of 2017 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., police station Highway, District Mathura and direct the respondent no. 2 to produce the corpus-petitioner before this Court and release her to go anywhere according to her wishes.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the corpus-petitioner is detained in Nari Niketan on account of the fact that she has been found to be minor by the learned Magistrate. It is stated that the learned Magistrate has not considered the high school certificate of the corpus-petitioner according to which she is aged between 17-18 years and as on date she is major. He submits that Amit Kumar, who is her alleged husband has already got himself bailed out in the F.I.R. which was lodged by respondent no. 4. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323 and Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128.
In compliance of this Court's order dated 5.3.2018, the corpus-petitioner Smt. Preeti has been produced by respondent no. 3 before this Court today and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her husband, namely, Amit Kumar.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that as per the statement of the corpuspetitioner, she voluntarily gone with Amit Kumar her alleged husband and in view of the law laid by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi (Supra) and Smt. Renu Maurya (Supra) , the corpus-petitioner is set at liberty to go in accordance with her own wishes. The impugned orders dated 6.12.2017 and 8.12.2017 passed by court below sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan are hereby set aside.
The corpus-petitioner shall be taken back to Nari Niketan from where she
shall be set at liberty by respondent no. 3 to go according to her wishes.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Shiraz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the corpus-petitioner should be released from Nari Niketan and set at liberty to go with her alleged husband.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323
Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128.
Preeti
State Of U.P.
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Krishna Pratap Singh
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
