Judgment : 1. Maheswari, the alleged victim concerned, in Crime No.186 of 1991 on Kanchipuram Taluk Police Station has filed this petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the order passed on 26.2.1991 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, directing the petitioner to be detained in the Reception Home at Mylapore, Madras. 2. Krishnan, the father of the petitioner Maheswari, gave the complaint on 23.2.1991 at 10.00 A.M. to the Sub-Inspector, Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station, and has also produced his daughter Maheswari and Gunaseelan, son of Anthony. The allegations in the statement are briefly as follows: As per school certificate, the date of birth of Maheswari was 7.5.1975. She was studying in X Standard. She was missing from 22.1.1991. Gunaseelan was kidnapped by giving false promises. He searched in various places but could not trace her. Then he learnt that Maheswari and Gunaseelan were at Arappakkan Village, Arakkonam Taluk. He went there along with his brothers son-in-law Murugan on 23.2.1991. They were there He had taken them and is producing them in the police station. 3. The Sub-Inspector had produced Maheswari before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram on 26.2.1991. The learned Magistrate had questioned her as to whether she is willing to go with her parents. She had replied that she is willing to go with her paternal uncle. The father of Maheswari had not filed any petition praying for custody of the girl. In the above circumstances, the learned Magistrate has passed an order directing that Maheswari should be kept in the Reception Home at Mylapore. In pursuance of the direction given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maheswari is kept in the Reception Home at Mylapore. Now she has come forward with this petition to set aside the said direction. 4. Mr.M.Karpagavinayagam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing detention in the Government Reception Home at Mylapore is wrong and there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure warranting such detention in a case under Sec.366, I.P.C. The learned counsel relied upon the ruling reported in Mariappan v. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Mariappan v. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 43 In that case, the victim was a major. She had completed 20 years of age that she married the petitioner on her own volition and that she wanted to live with him. On the above facts, my learned brother Justice T.S. Arunachalam had held that the order of the learned Magistrate directing detention of the alleged victim girl in Government Rescue Home is clearly wrong. Anyway the girl concerned in this case was found to be a major. In our case, according to the age certificate given by the Forensic Medicine Department after due examination, the age of the victim girl is above 17 years, but below 18 years. But yet it does not make any difference. In the above ruling, Justice Arunachalam has stated as follows: “There appears to be no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure warranting such detention, in a case under Sec.366, I.P.C. in a destitute home. The very same question was considered by this Court in Muthuswami IN RE. Muthuswami IN RE. ,1965 M.W.N. 166, by Kailasam. J. as he then was and the view taken therein that there was no such-power was reiterated by Maheswaran, J. in Crl.M.P.No.4290 of 1980.” 5. In view of the above, the order of the learned Magistrate directing detention in the Reception Home at Mylapore is wrong. 6. The learned counsel further relied upon the ruling reported in Kalyani v. State of U. P. Kalyani v. State of U. P. 1978 Crl.L.J. 1003, para 4, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows: “No person can be kept in the protective home unless she is required to be kept there either in pursuance of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act. or under some other Law permitting her detention in such a Home.” 7. In view of the above, the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, dated 26.21991, directing that the petitioner is to be detained in the Reception Home at Mylapore is wrong and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The petition is ordered accordingly.