Vinay Kumar Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR of case crime No. 289 of 2011 under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station, Bindaki, District, Fatehpur. 2. The petitioners Smt. Priyanka Devi and Aditya Singh are present in this Court and they have been identified by their lawyer. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi claims to have voluntarily married Aditya Singh, petitioner No. 2 out of her own sweet will and is living with him without any coercion and compulsion, and denies that she has ever been kidnapped by petitioner No. 2 or the other petitioners. 3. In paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that petitioner No. 1 is major and aged about 20 years, but no reliable proof regarding her age has been annexed with the petition. 4. Since, there is no conclusive dependable proof of age of Smt. Priyanka Devi as no reliable school certificate is available, we direct her to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate, Fatehpur within two weeks from today, who shall direct the Investigating Officer to produce her before the C.M.O. Fatehpur for the purpose of getting her medical examination done for ascertaining her age as per her appearance and also by a radiological examination. 5. The age certificate will bear the self attested photograph of Smt. Priyanka Devi. 6. In case, the CMO reports that she is 18 years in age or above, the I.O. concerned shall record her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and shall produce Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi before the CJM/Magistrate concerned for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C., who shall duly record the same. 7. The I.O. shall provide proper security to the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi for ensuring compliance of the aforesaid directions. 8. In case the said statements are favourable to the accused-petitioners, the I.O. shall consider the appropriateness of submitting a final report in this case and the CJM concerned may also pass appropriate orders in this regard. 9. In case the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi is found to be minor, then the CJM/Magistrate concerned shall pass appropriate orders regarding her custody as he deems fit and proper. 10. 9. In case the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi is found to be minor, then the CJM/Magistrate concerned shall pass appropriate orders regarding her custody as he deems fit and proper. 10. For the future security of the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Priyanka Devi, the petitioner No. 2, Aditya Singh is directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) in a nationalized bank/post office in the form of fixed deposit for a period of not less than three years within one month in the exclusive name of the petitioner No. 1. Smt. Priyanka Devi. 11. The amount so deposited shall not be withdrawn before its maturity under any circumstances except with the leave of the CJM/Magistrate concerned. 12. The concerned bank/post office shall be instructed by the depositor (petitioner No. 2) to make a specific note in the record as well as on the fixed deposit receipt that the same shall not be encashed before maturity except with the leave of the CJM/Magistrate concerned. 13. The petitioner No. 2 is directed to furnish proof before the CJM/Magistrate concerned on or before 30.1.2012 that he has made out the fixed deposit receipt as directed above in the name of the petitioner No. 1. 14. Till the disposal of the aforesaid proceedings before the CJM concerned as provided herein above, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 289 of 2011 under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station, Bindaki, District, Fatehpur, shall remain stayed. 15. In case the petitioner No. 2 fails to fulfill any of the conditions mentioned herein above, the stay of arrest granted by this Court shall stand vacated. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.