The petitioners have come up with prayers to quash (i) the First Information Report dated 4th December, 2001 appending its Zerox copy alongwith typed copy as Annexure-1 drawn up on the information of own younger brother of Petitioner No. 1 named Shiv Kumar, Son of Santosh Singh, giving rise to registration of Case Crime No. 665 (wrongly stated in the prayer portion as 664 of 2001) under Sections 363, 506 and 364 IPC (ii) the police investigation in relation to the aforementioned case and (iii) to command the respondents not to interfere with their liberty to lead their marital life and take Petitioner No. 1 in custody and handover to Respondent No. 3. 2. The impugned First Information Report states, inter alia, to this effect:-at about 5. 00 a. m. early morning the Informants elder sister Babli (= Petitioner No. 1) aged 16 years and Maternal Grand- Mother went out of the Village for easing out, after some time he, too, went for easing; about 150 meters away from the Village, he saw that Badmash, after pushing away her Maternal-Grand-Mother forcibly putting her sister Babli in a Marshal Deluxe vehicle belonging to Petitioner No. 2. Om Veer Singh after tearing her cloths, where he rushed; he was threatened by Katta and Aslahon and was asked that if he will cry then he will be murdered and thus he could not cry to save her sister; Petitioner No. 2, Driver Mahipal Singh, Jagveer Singh, Karua, Ashok and two others unknown were on the vehicles, which they drove away; later-on his Tau Ashok Kumar came and was apprised of the entire facts; her sister was taken away with intention of either kidnapping or committal of rape; he has come alongwith his Tau to get his report lodged, which be registered and action taken against the aforesaid persons and his sister be traced out. 3. 3. The petitioners assert, inter alia, to this effect:-Petitioner No. 1 is major aged about 20 years; she has been medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri who found her age 20 years, a true copy of her Medical Certificate is being filed as Annexure-2; Petitioner No. 2 is aged about 25 years, literate and has passed Intermediate; both are Hindus and Yadav by caste; being unmarried they were entitled to marry each other in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in September, 2001 they married out of free consent according to Hindu rites; their marriage is valid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act; both also prepared an Ekrarnama on 14-12-2001 of their marriage which has been verified by the Notary, District Etah, a true copy of which is being filed as Annexure-3; after marriage both of them are living as husband and wife; Respondent No. 3 is brother of Petitioner No. 1, who despite the fact that even though Petitioner No. 1 had become major took no pain for her marriage due to ulterior reasons which was the precise reason for Petitioner No. 1 to marry Petitioner No. 2 out of her free will and consent; Respondent No. 3 on account of Village Partybandi did not relish her marriage and maliciously and falsely lodged the false, fabricated and absurd First Information Report on which no truthful person can place reliance and thus in view of the decision in P. S. Rajya v. State, Supreme Today, 1996 (4) 445, is liable to be quashed; Nani or the complainant himself had not received any injury, it has been falsely stated that clothes of Petitioner No. 1 were torn; there is no allegation in the First Information Report that kidnapping was done for commission of murder; the investigation has been handed-over to Respondent No. 2 Head Constable K. P. Singh, who is not authorized under paragraph 51 of the U. P. Police Regulation; the entire investigation is illegal in view of T. T. Antony v. State of Keralal, 2001 (2) JIC 818 (SC); 2001 (5) Supreme Today 313; even though Petitioner No. 2 has not committed any offence at all yet the Investigating Officer is trying to arrest him as well as Petitioner No. 1 and handover the latter to Respondent No. 3. 3. 1. 3. 1. This writ petition incorporates only two grounds: (A) because no offence is made out. (B) because fundamental rights of the petitioners are being violated. 4. When this writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench on 29th January, 2002, the following order was passed: "sri Tejpal learned Counsel for the petitioners states that before this writ petition could come up for admission, both the petitioners have been arrested by police. Petitioner No. 2 is an accused in the case in question while Smt. Babli alias Maya is said to be the girl who is alleged to have been kidnapped by Petitioner No. 2. According to the petitioners case she is major and has married Petitioner No. 2 of her own volition. Issue notice to Respondent No. 2 with a direction to produce Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Babli alias Maya before this Court on the next date of listing. Shri Kumar Respondent No. 3 who is represented by Sri Rajeev Sharma holding brief of Sri Anoop Singh is also directed to produce Smt. Babli alias Maya before this Court in case she has been handed over to him by the Investigating Officer of this case. List on 18th February, 2002. In the meantime Respondent No. 3 may file counter-affidavit. " 5. Thereafter, on 18th February, 2002 this writ petition was placed before us. What happened before us in Court stands reflected in our order dated 18-2-2002, which reads as follows: "in terms of the Courts order dated 29-1-2002 Babli alias Maya is being produced before us. In the meantime Respondent No. 3 may file counter-affidavit. " 5. Thereafter, on 18th February, 2002 this writ petition was placed before us. What happened before us in Court stands reflected in our order dated 18-2-2002, which reads as follows: "in terms of the Courts order dated 29-1-2002 Babli alias Maya is being produced before us. She makes statements to this effect before us:-She had married Petitioner No. 2 Om Veer Singh of her own sweet will and not under anyones enticement or coercion; that the statements made in the writ petition to the contrary have been made by her under threat and coercion of her killing by her father Santosh Singh, her uncles Rakesh Singh and Kamlesh Singh; her fathers elder brother Ashok Singh and a man who is present in Court in yellow clothes with turban on his head whose name she does not know but identifies in Court who has been visiting her house for the last about two months and doing some tantra-mantra, and her cousin Vinod Kumar son of Ashok Singh; that they also threatened her that if the Court sends her to Nari Niketan she will be got killed there also; and that they have got kept arms in lawyers Chamber No. 19. In the larger interest of justice we direct the police authorities deputed in the Court premises to visit lawyers Chamber No. 19 atonce to find out as to whether any arm has been kept in lawyers Chamber No. 19 or not and if it has been kept, to lodge a FIR atonce against the persons concerned and thereafter, the police will act in accordance with law. We are required to rise at 3. 15 p. m. so as to assemble in the Full Court reference. Thus it is not possible for us to proceed with this case any further today. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, in the larger interest of justice, we direct the Registrar-General of the Court to send Petitioner No. 1 atonce to Nari Niketan where she will be given all possible protection so that no one could coerce her or make any attempt to kill her, who shall be further produced before us tomorrow at 10. 00 a. m. for hearing this case further directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to do the needful in this regard. 00 a. m. for hearing this case further directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to do the needful in this regard. We also direct the police authorities in the peculiar facts and circumstances to release Petitioner No. 2 forthwith on furnishing Bail Bonds of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras who has been arrested in Case Crime No. 665 of 2001 under Sections 363, 504, 506, 364 IPC, P. S. Sikandra Rau, District Hathras. The person in yellow dress and turban on his head discloses his name as Narain Das son of Sri Parmanand Resident of Village Binaura, P. S. Churkhi, District Jalaun. The other two persons present in Court disclose their names as Ashok Kumar son of Hari Mohan and Shiv Kumar son of Santosh Kumar both residents of village Sarai, P. S. Sikandra Rau, District Hathras. The aforementioned three persons identified by the Petitioner No. 1 thus prima facie had committed Contempt of this Court in giving threats to her of being killed and make incorrect statements and have apparently obstructed the administration of justice of this Court and thus we initiate proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against all of them who are also forwarded before the Registrar-General of the Court for furnishing undertakings that they will produce themselves tomorrow. This Criminal writ petition and Article 215 contempt proceedings both shall be heard further tomorrow. It is needless to clarify that this Division Bench constituting Allahabad High Court itself has plenary power under the Constitution of India to initiate proceedings in contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for which no rules have been framed under the Rules of the Court and is competent to deal with such a situation suo moto. Before parting for the day we point out that Sri Udai Karan Saxena, who has entered appearance on behalf of Babli alias Maya aforementioned, sought withdrawal as the Counsel from this case but at the moment it will not be desirable to pass any order in that regard for the present. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to (i) Nari Niketan, Allahabad and (ii) Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, in course of the day, for a follow up action. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to (i) Nari Niketan, Allahabad and (ii) Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, in course of the day, for a follow up action. The office is further directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. , in course of the day for its intimation to and follow up action by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. " 6. Thereafter, we had heard Mr. Tejpal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. K. Verma, the learned A. G. A. on 19-2-2002 and had passed the following order: "the Registrar General of the Court informs us that Honble the Chief Justice is aware of the problem concerning security of the Court premises which includes the Bar Associations and has already taken some decision. Since Honble the Chief Justice of this Court is the administrative head and already in seisin of the threat perception we are of the view that for the present no order on the judicial side of this Court is required to be passed. We give liberty to the Registrar General to inform Honble the Chief Justice of the events which had taken place yesterday which stands recorded in our order dated 18th February, 2002 and recovery of the live cartridges and the Country made pistol as orally reported to by the Police. (2) Petitioner No. 1 Babli alias Maya has been produced before us. She wants to make some further statements. We direct her to make her statements before the Registrar General of the Court, who shall either record himself or get the same recorded by some other Registrar of the Court. Her statements will be recorded in the presence of the contemners. (3) We also direct the contemners, who are present before us to make their statements, if they so like, before the Registrar General of the Court, who shall get the statements recorded personally or through some other Registrar of the Court. (4) After recording of the statements of Petitioner No. 1, she shall be taken to Nari Niketan, Allahabad to be produced tomorrow before us once again. (5) We are being informed by the learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Verma that Case Crime No. 25 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act Police Station Cantt. District Allahabad has been instituted against the contemners. (5) We are being informed by the learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Verma that Case Crime No. 25 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act Police Station Cantt. District Allahabad has been instituted against the contemners. He after perusal of our order dated 18-2-2002 states that apart from 25 Arms Act the persons concerned have prima facie committed offences under Sections 342, 504 and 506 IPC also. (6) Since the contemners against whom criminal prosecution has been launched are required to be produced before the C. J. M. , Allahabad or any other competent Magistrate after their statements are recorded, they shall be taken by the police to be produced before the C. J. M. , Allahabad or any other Competent Court for a follow up action but they shall be produced by the police once again tomorrow before us. (7) Put up tomorrow for further hearing this writ proceeding as well as the contempt proceeding awaiting receipt of the statements. " 7. It appears that Joint Registrar (Confidential) Sri N. K. Singh record the statements of Petitioner No. 1 and three of the contemners. 8. On 20-2-2002 after further hearing Sri Tejpal and Sri Verma we had passed the following order: "the Registry had forwarded the statements of Petitioner No. 1 and other three persons in a sealed cover. We direct our Bench Secretary to open it for our perusal. (2) Yesterday on the basis of the statements made by Sri Verma, learned A. G. A. , before us we had passed our order, the relevant part of which, reads as follows: "5. We are being informed by the learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Verma that Case Crime No. 25 of 2002 under Section 25 Arms Act Police Station Cantt. District Allahabad has been instituted against the contemners. He after perusal of our order dated 18-2-2002 states that apart from 25 Arms Act the persons concerned have prima facie committed offences under Sections 342, 504 and 506 IPC also. 6. District Allahabad has been instituted against the contemners. He after perusal of our order dated 18-2-2002 states that apart from 25 Arms Act the persons concerned have prima facie committed offences under Sections 342, 504 and 506 IPC also. 6. Since the contemners against whom criminal prosecution has been launched are required to be produced before the C. J. M. , Allahabad or any other competent Magistrate after their statements are recorded, they shall be taken by the Police to be produced before the C. J. M. , Allahabad or any other Competent Court for a follow up action but they shall be produced by the police once again tomorrow before us. " (3) Today we are being informed by Sri Verma, learned A. G. A. , that the aforementioned Case Crime No. is 31 of 2002 and not 25 of 2002 and that it was registered only against Ashok Kumar Yadav alias Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Harimohan Singh, Resident of Village Sarai Mahamai Salawat Nagar, Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras, who has been described by Petitioner No. 1 before us as Ashok Singh who is her fathers elder brother; that Ashok Kumar Yadav alias Ashok Singh aforementioned was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad who remanded him in judicial custody till 3rd March, 2002 and is in Jail from where he has been taken to the Court in terms of the directions made by us. (4) Sri Verma, learned A. G. A. , also informs us that Respondent No. 2 the Investigating Officer of Case No. 665 of 2001, which is sought to be quashed has not contacted him even though he was directed by the Courts order dated 29th January, 2002 to produce Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Babli alias Maya before this Court on 18th February, 2002 or even till date and obviously in not adhering to comply with the directions of this Court aforementioned he has prima facie undermined the authority of the Court. (5) However, as prayed for by the learned Government Advocate Sri R. P. Dubey, indulgence is granted to Respondent No. 2 to explain his conduct in this regard, who shall appear in Court on Monday dated 25th February, 2002 alongwith his entire papers of investigation at 10. 00 a. m. when this case will be taken up for further hearing. (5) However, as prayed for by the learned Government Advocate Sri R. P. Dubey, indulgence is granted to Respondent No. 2 to explain his conduct in this regard, who shall appear in Court on Monday dated 25th February, 2002 alongwith his entire papers of investigation at 10. 00 a. m. when this case will be taken up for further hearing. (6) Sri R. P. Dubey, learned Government Advocate, takes up a stand that due to some misunderstanding on the part of the police authorities and the absence of the copy of the order dated 18th February, 2002, wherein the statements made by the Petitioner No. 1 before us have been referred to the First Information Report could not be bona fide registered against the remaining persons under appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code which shall be corrected/rectified in course of the day and the remaining persons shall also be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for a follow up action. (7) Respondent No. 3, Shiv Kumar, Son of Santosh Singh, Resident of Village Sarai Mahamai, Salawat Nagar, Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras has been apparently described incorrectly as Shri Kumar. He has been produced before us. He claims his age about 14 years, though in his statement made before the Registry he has asserted his age to be 15 and half years. Thus, he prima facie appears to be a juvenile. Accordingly, we direct the Local Police to release him on bail in the Case Crime in question in which he is likely to figure after taking a personal bond of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) from his fathers elder brother Ashok Kumar Yadav, subject to further order of the Court. (8) Petitioner No. 1 in her statement before the Registry of the Court has stated that she knew Om Veer Singh (Petitioner No. 2) for the last three years who is having a wife and a son living. In this view of the matter we are prima facie of the view that the alleged marriage of Petitioner No. 1 with Petitioner No. 2 is void in law being contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act even though she asserts that she is bearing a child through Om Veer Singh. In this view of the matter we are prima facie of the view that the alleged marriage of Petitioner No. 1 with Petitioner No. 2 is void in law being contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act even though she asserts that she is bearing a child through Om Veer Singh. We order that Petitioner No. 1 shall be taken to Nari Niketan till further orders to the contrary clarifying that she will be produced before us, if and when we pass an order in that regard directing further that her person and property, if any which she is carrying, shall be protected by the Police authorities in terms of our earlier order. (9) The contemner except the juvenile one will be produced on Monday dated 25th February, 2002 for further hearing of the writ proceeding and the contempt proceedings so that article of charges in regard to committal of Criminal Contempt be framed in their presence. (10) If any one applies for having a certified copy of the statements made by the four persons concerned, he shall be supplied the same as per the law. (11) Let a copy of this order be handed-over to Mr. A. K. Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate/mr. R. P. Dubey, learned Government Advocate, in course of the day for its intimation to and follow up action by the authority concerned. " 9. In his counter-affidavit Respondent No. 2 the I. O. Kripal Singh has stated, inter alia, that he has recorded the statements of the Constable Clerk Pradeep Kumar, the First Informant Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Hardai (the grand-mother), Rakesh Kumar and Santosh Singh; that he also did the spot inspection and prepared site plan; that on 9-12-2001 he also recorded the statement of accused Jagveer Singh but the investigation was transferred from him to Manoj Kumar Singh the Sub-Inspector; and that thereafter, he handed-over the entire case diary to Manoj Kumar Singh the Sub-Inspector. 10. In his counter-affidavit the Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar Singh has stated, inter alia, that he moved an application before the Magistrate for initiating proceeding under Sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. on which non- bailable warrant was issued against the accused persons; on 26-1-2002, when he was in search of the victim Km. Babli and the accused Om Veer Singh at about 4. P. C. on which non- bailable warrant was issued against the accused persons; on 26-1-2002, when he was in search of the victim Km. Babli and the accused Om Veer Singh at about 4. 35 p. m. arrested them near Sikandara Railway Station and recorded their statements; Km. Babli filed an application that she wanted to go alongwith her father then on that very day she was permitted to go alongwith her uncle Ashok Kumar, who was directed to produce her for her medical examination and X-ray on 28th January, 2001; On 28th January Km. Babli was brought to the Police Station, but she declined to give her statement due to her illness and then she was sent for her medical examination and X-ray; On 30th January he obtained the medical report of the C. M. O. ; the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. on 2nd February which he could see on 4th February, 2002; and that after perusing all the records including the statements of the victim as well as the medical report he has added Sections 363, 366, 506 and 376 IPC but the investigation is still going on after completion of which the report will be submitted before the competent Court. 11. What had happened before us on 25th February, 2002 stands reflected in our order, which reads thus: "mr. A. K. Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate, files a counter-affidavit sworn by Kripal Singh, who was the earlier Investigating Officer and another counter-affidavit sworn by the subsequent Investigating Officer which are being kept on the record. (2) Mr. Verma also produces two X-rox copies of the Police diary which are being kept on the record. (3) Mr. Tejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenges the correctness of the Medical examination of the Petitioner No. 1 and the opinion given by the doctor that Petitioner No. 1 is aged 17 years as stated in the Police diary whereas according to the medical examination and the certificate granted by the C. M. O. , Mainpuri as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, she is aged 20 years. (4) We also put on record the stand of the Investigating Officer that he had arrested the petitioners near Hathras Railway Station which fact has been disputed by Sri Tejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stating that in fact the petitioners were arrested by the Police of Police Station Colonelganj Town and District Allahabad on 23-1-2002 from Aman Hotel, Mohalla Katra nearby the Lower Court where they were staying which fact has also been published in form of a news item at page 3 of the newspaper named amrit Prabhat Allahabad dated 24-1-2002 which is being produced by him and kept on the record and that this fact was also apprised to the Court on 29th January, 2002 on which a direction was issued to the Investigating Officer (Respondent No. 2) to produce petitioner No. 1 and that as a face saving device deliberately incorrect entries have been made in the Police diary. (5) In this back ground we, for the present in the interest of justice, direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to see that the records of Police Station Colonelganj of 23-1-2002 are produced before us to find out as to whether entries in the Police diary which have been produced before us are fictitous, forged and fabricated. (6) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad will also see that through some responsible Police Officer petitioner No. 1, who is presently in Nari Niketan, is produced before us tomorrow. (7) The contemners who have produced before us shall be re-produced tomorrow. (8) Put up tomorrow for further hearing. (9) The office is directed to serve a copy of this order on Sri Verma, learned A. G. A. if possible in course of the day who is authorized by us to inform the substance of this order to Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for compliance of the directions aforementioned. " 12. (8) Put up tomorrow for further hearing. (9) The office is directed to serve a copy of this order on Sri Verma, learned A. G. A. if possible in course of the day who is authorized by us to inform the substance of this order to Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for compliance of the directions aforementioned. " 12. Today what happened before lunch before us stands reflected in our order, which reads as follows: "26-2-2002.-In terms of our direction the General Diary entries made in the General Diary of the Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad from 17th January, 2002 to 25th January, 2002 has been produced by Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. Entry No. 44 of which is at page 90 of the General Diary shows arrival of Sub- Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma, Constable No. 648 Suresh Chandra and Constable No. 10 Bhagari Prasad for Hathras in connection with the case crime No. 665 of 2001 under Sections 363/366/364 IPC and returned back. This entry has been recorded at 18-35 that is to say 6. 35 p. m. in the evening which prima facie corroborates the statement of Petitioner No. 1 that she was arrested from Allahabad and belies the claim of the Police investigation that she was arrested in the manner as indicated in the Police Diary. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the S. H. O. , P. S. Colonelganj to be present in Court at 1. 45 p. m. to have his version in this regard. After dictation of the aforementioned order 15 minutes was granted to the I. O. Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma and the Head Constable (No. 153) Ram Lal to rethink over the correctness of their statements made before us as well as in the Police Diary. Mr. A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. , after some talks with them informs us that it is a fact that the petitioner No. 1 as well as Petitioner No. 2 both were arrested at Allahabad. We give a chance to the I. O. , S. I. Manoj Kumar Sharma to make his statements on oath by way of a supplementary affidavit while adjourning the further hearing of these two proceedings to be resumed today at 1. 45 p. m. " 13. After lunch Mr. We give a chance to the I. O. , S. I. Manoj Kumar Sharma to make his statements on oath by way of a supplementary affidavit while adjourning the further hearing of these two proceedings to be resumed today at 1. 45 p. m. " 13. After lunch Mr. A. K. Verma, filed an affidavit of the Investigating Officer stating that the figure 25 is a typographical error in lieu of 24 as mentioned in the earlier part of Paragraph-2 and that the I. O. who has tendered his unqualified apology has left himself at our mercy and that he be exonerated and pardoned. 14. Mr. Tej Pal contended that in view of the fact that petitioners being major had married lawfully much before the alleged occurrence, therefore, the entire accusations in the impugned FIR are false and it is liable to be quashed; the petitioners fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees them to lead a meaningful married life cannot allowed to be breached; and thus the reliefs prayed for be granted. 15. Mr. A. K. Verma contended as follows: In view of the statements made in the counter-affidavits of the two I. Os this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Mr. A. K. Verma contended as follows: In view of the statements made in the counter-affidavits of the two I. Os this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In any view of the matter in view of the statements made by Petitioner No. 1 herself before the Joint Registrar of the Court she has married Petitioner No. 2, who was a married person and having his wife and a child living and thus the case set- forth in paragraph 7 of this writ petition that Petitioner No. 2 was unmarried is absolutely a false statement; since the Petitioner No. 2 is already having a wife, the alleged marriage of Petitioner No. 1 with Petitioner No. 2 was void and nullity in the eye of law; true it is that mistake has been committed by the present I. O. in the diary in showing the arrest of the petitioners nearby Hathras Railway Station, whereas they were apprehended at Allahabad in that regard to which has filed his affidavit and has tendered unqualified apology and grant of mercy and pardon for his exoneration but the materials collected by him during investigating which have been mentioned in the diary prima facie shows that Petitioner No. 1, on examination by the C. M. O. , Hathras, was found to be aged about 17 years only and thus there is no question of giving of her any consent whatsoever in law so as to give a handle to Petitioner No. 2 to escape the investigation and if charge-sheet is submitted the consequent trial and thus this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 16. Sri Tej Pal, on the other hand, replied that Petitioner No. 2 had married Petitioner No. 1 after divorcing his first wife as per the custom prevalent in their caste, which is permissible under Section 29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He took up a stand that the petitioners are prepared to file a Supplementary affidavit in this regard bringing on record the relevant pleadings. Alternatively, he contended that since the Doctors report, appended as Annexure-2, shows Petitioner No. 1 as major, therefore, she is entitled to reside with her husband Petitioner No. 2 as his wife invoking her fundamental right to lead a meaningful life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Alternatively, he contended that since the Doctors report, appended as Annexure-2, shows Petitioner No. 1 as major, therefore, she is entitled to reside with her husband Petitioner No. 2 as his wife invoking her fundamental right to lead a meaningful life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also emphasized that no counter-affidavit having been filed by the respondents, therefore, the statements made by the petitioners on oath be accepted as correct. 17. Mr. Verma replied that in terms of the order dated 29-1-2002 the petitioners were required to take steps to serve Respondent No. 2 who has been impleaded by his name and that both I. Os. have appeared and filed counters and the case diary when they were apprised of our order for production of the diary. 18. The issue as to whether Petitioner No. 1 is minor or major, which is a question of fact and shall have a crucial effect should not be adjudicated in this summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras is in seisin of the case, which, when properly contested by Petitioner No. 2, can be appropriately adjudicated. 19. In Paragraph 7 of this writ petition it has been asserted by the petitioners that both of them were unmarried and entitled to marry each other in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The statement to the effect that Petitioner No. 2 was unmarried cannot be accepted by us in view of the clear-cut statement made by Petitioner No. 1 herself in her statement before the Joint Registrar of the Court terms of our directions that Petitioner No. 2 was married and having his wife and child. Apparently, the petitioners have taken recourse to falsehood in this regard. The statement made by Petitioner No. 1 that Petitioner No. 2 was married and having a wife and a child has not been dubbed as incorrect by Mr. Tej Pal before us. We, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances do not intend to issue notices to the petitioners for showing cause as to why a proceeding in contempt be not initiated against them for swearing a false affidavit and that a prosecution be lunched for perjury. 20. The belated statement of Mr. Tej Pal before us. We, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances do not intend to issue notices to the petitioners for showing cause as to why a proceeding in contempt be not initiated against them for swearing a false affidavit and that a prosecution be lunched for perjury. 20. The belated statement of Mr. Tej Pal that before performing his marriage with Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2 has divorced his first wife as per the custom does not require our scrutiny. The law is well-settled that plea of custom is required to be taken and proved. No such pleading having been taken in this writ petition that as per the custom Petitioner No. 2 had divorced his first wife we do not feel persuaded to adjourn this case and give a handle to the petitioners to introduce a new case after we had recorded a finding on 20-2-2002 that prima facie the marriage is void. Significant in this context that the Petitioner No. 1 had also stated that the petitioners had married with consent of the wife of Petitioner No. 2. 21. The argument made by Mr. Tej Pal that the petitioners are entitled to reside as married husband and wife invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not appeal to us at all. Firstly the question as to whether Petitioner No. 1 is minor or major shall have a vital bearing. Secondly, even a major girl or woman cannot invoke any fundamental right to live with a male who is having a wife and child. The Constitution of India vide Article 23 (1) forbids immoral traffic. So does not Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The Indian Penal Code and the Hindu Marriage Act does not permit bigamy. Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act also prescribes punishment for violation of conditions specified in Clauses (iii) of Section 5. This Constitutional Court if proceeds to permit them to lead a marital life it will apparently mean perpetuating bigamy, which is an offence under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The two decisions of the Apex Court cited by the petitioners are of no help to them. Thus for the aforesaid reasons we reject grant of the prayers. 22. The two decisions of the Apex Court cited by the petitioners are of no help to them. Thus for the aforesaid reasons we reject grant of the prayers. 22. Further as a guardian of the Constitution of India so far as this State is concerned, we cannot brush aside the fundamental right of the wife and child of Petitioner No. 2 to lead a meaningful life guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and other rights available under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and we must uphold their right giving liberty to them to ventilate their grievances, if and when raised by them, before any appropriate authority or Court, which is bound to adjudicate them in accordance with law. 23. In view of the divergence in the two medical opinion we, in the interest of justice, constitute a three Member Medical Board comprising (i) the Principal of the S. N. Medical College, Agra as its Chairman (ii) Head of the Department of Orthopedics of the S. N. Medical College as its Member and (iii) Head of the Department of Gynecology of the S. N. Medical as its 2nd Member, which will examine Petitioner No. 1 after obtaining Radiological Report (Ossification of Bones Test of Petitioner No. 1) from their Radiology Department and opinion of their radiologist whether Petitioner No. 1 was minor or major on 4-12-2001. The Medical Board shall be obliged to give its Report keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court that such a report does not conclusively prove the correct age of a person and that there are chances of error of one or two years on either side, which shall be forwarded to the C. J. M. , Hathras. The costs in this regard has to be met by Petitioner No. 2. 24. The costs in this regard has to be met by Petitioner No. 2. 24. The admission of the Investigating Officer before us that he has committed mistake in showing the arrest of the petitioners nearby Hathras Railway Station coupled with the fact that since Petitioner No. 1 had not committed any offence she could not have been arrested at all added by contradictory medical opinions brought on our record in regard to which we have constituted a Medical Board and since the question of minority and/or majority of Petitioner No. 1 shall have a vital bearing in the interest of justice, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Hathras to get further investigation done by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who shall proceed with the further investigation of the Case Crime in question only after the receipt of the report of the Medical Board, aforementioned. 25. Petitioner No. 1 was taken to Nari Niketan, Allahabad. She has expressed a desire before us that she will like to reside with her Maternal Uncle Prem Singh Son of Yadram, Resident of Village Onni, Police Station Mehrar, District Etah (U. P.) and/or Yadram himself who is her Maternal-grand-father, if we do not allow her to reside with Petitioner No. 2. She will remain in Nari Niketan, Allahabad for three days. Her Maternal Uncle and/or Maternal Grand Father aforementioned shall be at liberty to visit Nari Niketan, Allahabad to take her away for her living with them, who shall produce her before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras within one week for sending her to the Medical Board for the purpose already indicated earlier. In the event of their failure to take Petitioner No. 1 from Nari Niketan the Hathras Police will take her before the C. J. M. , Hathras for doing the needful in accordance with law. 26. Our direction to release Petitioner No. 2 vide order dated 18-2-2002 shall remain in operation till the receipt of the Report of the Medical Board by the C. J. M. , Hathras. 27. The Criminal Case instituted by the Allahabad Police shall proceed in accordance with law. 28. As prayed for by Mr. U. K. Saxena, Advocate, who has filed subsequently a further Vakalatnama of Petitioner No. 1, his appearance is cancelled. 29. 27. The Criminal Case instituted by the Allahabad Police shall proceed in accordance with law. 28. As prayed for by Mr. U. K. Saxena, Advocate, who has filed subsequently a further Vakalatnama of Petitioner No. 1, his appearance is cancelled. 29. In regard to the security of the premises of this Court we have already directed the Registrar General to apprise Honble the Chief Justice, who is administrative head of the Court, for doing the needful and in that view of the matter no further direction of ours is required. 30. The General Police Diary of Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad is being returned back to Mr. A. K. Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate. 31. Let a copy of this order be dispatched forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras for a follow up action by the Medical Board and him as well. 32. Let a copy of this order be also handed over to Mr. A. K. Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate, forthwith, for its intimation to and follow up action by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras. 33. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, but without cost. Petition disposed of. .