Smt. Tanu Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 66

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 342 of 2020

Petitioner :- Smt. Tanu Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Sahu,Om Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with rule nisi issued on 31.08.2020, the detenue, Smt. Tanu Yadav has been produced before this Court by a Lady Constable Pooja Rani (Constable No.1146) posted at Police Station Indragarh, District Kannauj. She has identified Smt. Tanu Yadav before this Court.

¶6

Notice upon respondent no.4, Ram Sajeevan has been served through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, who has submitted his report dated 07.08.2020 that notice has been served upon Ram Sajeevan @ Babloo son of Baburam resident of Village Nikaripur, Indragarh, Police Station Indragarh, District Kannauj, personally through the police. Photocopy of the return has been annexed bearing the thumb impression of Ram Sajeevan. Service upon respondent no.4 is deemed sufficient. No one appears on behalf of the fourth respondent.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The case of the second petitioner, who has effectively moved this habeas corpus writ petition is that he has married the first petitioner according to Hindu Rites on 21.03.2020 at the Aarya Samaj Mati, Kanpur Dehat. He has annexed a certificate of marriage. It is asserted that the first petitioner is a major aged about 20 years. She is illiterate and therefore, there is no educational testimonial to prove her age. The second petitioner has relied on a copy of Aadhaar Card. He alleges further that an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.4 on 16.03.2020 giving rise to Case Crime No.50 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Indragarh, District Kannauj.

¶9

In connection with the said case, the first petitioner was produced before the Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There the first petitioner asserted that she was 19 years old and a major. She spelt out the circumstances in which she married the second petitioner. She

¶10

also said that she stayed with him for 15 months at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The first petitioner also supported her case of marriage to the second petitioner. She had indicated her desire to stay with the second petitioner, saying that she was in the family way, into the second month.

¶11

At this stage, Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned A.G.A. objects to the rule being made absolute on the ground that the prosecutrix is a minor. According to him, her age is 15 years. He has placed reliance on a school leaving certificate issued by the Principal, S.R.V. Gyan Niketan Junior High School, Adhar, Auraiya, where the first petitioner's date of birth has been shown to be 04.06.2005. It shows that the first petitioner read in the said school in class 7th and 8th from 03.04.2016 to 30.03.2018. She was withdrawn from school on 31.03.2018 by her guardian in accordance with their wish. A copy of scholar register has been produced, bearing Scholar Register no.2537. Since, the detenue has been produced before this Court, this Court proceeds to record her statement about her age and stand regarding the second petitioner's claim, verbatim :

¶12

"Q.1. Aapka naam kya hai?

¶13

Ans. Tanu Yadav

¶14

Q.2. Appke pitaji ka naam kya hai? Ans. Ram Sajeevan Yadav Q.3. Aapki aayu kya hai? Ans. 16 varsh

¶15

Q.4. S.R.V. Gyan Niketan me padhi hain?

¶16

Ans. Haan Q. 5 Kitne din padhi hain? Ans. Kaksha 8 tak Q.6. Kya aapne shadi ki hai? Ans. Nahi, Un logo ne jabardasti ki Q.7. Wo log kaun hain?

¶17

Ans. Anuj

¶18

Q. 6.Aap Kahan jana chahti hain?

¶19

Ans. Mummi Papa ke pas

¶20

Going by the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she has not married the second petitioner of her free will and she is not in illegal confinement of the fourth respondent. She wants to go back with her parents. There is no good ground to make the rule absolute. The rule is discharged. The petition is dismissed .

¶21

Smt. Tanu Yadav is free to go back to her parents. The police escort who have brought her here, will escort her in freedom back to the safety of her parents' home.

¶22

The sum of Rs.15,000/- deposited by petitioner no.2 with the Registrar General of this Court in compliance with the order dated 13.07.2020, shall be remitted forthwith in account of Ram Sajeevan Yadav, the first petitioner's father, through an instrument, payable at Kannauj.

¶23

Office of the Registrar General to take necessary steps forthwith.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.9.2020 Atul

Smt. Tanu Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tanu Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rituraj Vs State of U.P.

Abrar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Nandlal Mishra Vs State of U.P.