Shri Narayan Shukla, J.- Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 as well as Mr. Rajen­dra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner Smt. Sitawati through her next friend husband Mr. Sameer Arya, claims her illegal detention by respondent No. 3, on the ground that they have married to each other, whereas upon perusal of the record, I find that one First Information Report No. 340 of 2010, as Case Crime No. 431 of 2010, under section 364 IPC, has been registered at Police Sta­tion Chinhat, district Lucknow, against unknown persons for missing of Km.. Si­tawati. Subsequently the complainant came to know that she has been kidnapped by Sameer, Waseem @ Bharti and his father Jameel Ahmad Siddiqui, on the basis of which the police came into motion and re­covered the girl from their custody and produced before the Additional Chief Judi­cial Magistrate-I, Lucknow. She was also medically examined. The medical certifi­cate, High School certificate, marriage cer­tificate as well as the religion transfer cer­tificate were produced before the learned Magistrate. On the basis of the medical cer­tificate which certifies her age as 17 years, ignoring the educational certificate, which certifies her date of birth as 1st of January, 1991, the learned Magistrate determined her as major, therefore, he set her free to go as per her own wish and accordingly dis­posed of the matter. 3. One affidavit of Mr. Sameer Ahmad has been brought on record, in which he has disclosed his age as 25 years, whereas his date of birth as per High School certificate is recorded as 15th of July, 1992, which comes, on the date of swearing of affidavit i.e. 13th of October, 2010, about 18 years. It is also stated that on the basis of this false certificate Sameer Ahmad, posing himself as major, has suc­ceeded to get the certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandi, Aliganj, Lucknow, therefore, it is also stated that for submitting the false affidavit Mr. Sameer Ahmad is liable to be prosecuted under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure. 4. Sameer Ahmad is liable to be prosecuted under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure. 4. So far as the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is the basis for production of Sitawati, is concerned, I find that the learned Magistrate has committed manifest error in not acknowledging the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate of Mr. Sameer Ahmad. More so, the marriage certificate, which is based on the false affidavit sweared by Mr. Sameer Ahmad, cannot be said to be a valid one, rather it has been obtained fraudulently by fabricating the documents, therefore, the said certificate of marriage, being void, has no force in the eye of law. Thus, the peti­tion lacks merit and is dismissed. 5. So far as the action against Mr. Sameer Ahmad for furnishing the false cer­tificate before the Marriage Officer is con­cerned, I hereby give liberty to the respon­dent No. 3 to initiate the criminal proceed­ings against him before the learned Magis­trate, before whom, the marriage certifi­cate, obtained fraudulently, was produced. Petition Dismissed.