JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, seeking a direction to respondents in the nature of habeas corpus to produce corpus of petitioner before the Court in person, since she has been detained in Government Women Protection Centre, Kalindikunj, Agra without her consent illegally. 2. It is said that petitioner is major, having her age of more than 25 years. She is not wanted in any criminal case nor is accused in any such matter. She has never been indulged in immoral trafficking etc. A false story was set up and FIR in Case Crime No. 326 of 2014 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad on 18.11.2014, in which, it was stated that from House No. 72/91, Meergunj, Allahabad police recovered a large number of girls indulged in immoral trafficking which included the name of petitioner also. The aforesaid FIR has been registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1956'), 1956, Section 4 , 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 370, 370A, 372 read with Section 3 4, 120-B IPC. On the report submitted by Circle Officer-IInd, Allahabad before Chief Judicial Magistrate the petitioner and twenty two other girls were sought to be kept at Government Women Protection Home, Kalindikunj, Agra, whereupon Magistrate passed an order for medical examination and further investigation under Section 17(3) of Act, 1956 and keeping the girls at the aforesaid centre at Agra. The order was passed by the Magistrate on 21.11.2014. 3. This Court passed an order directing the respondents to produce the petitioner in person before the Court, pursuant whereto the girl, who has been produced before the Court, stated that her name is Lipi Das, date of birth 17.09.1995, resident of Canal Road, Madhyamgram(m), North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. 4. Learned A.G.A. stated, when the girl was recovered from House No. 72/91, Meergunj, Allahabad, she disclosed her name as Chandni Yadav, but subsequently it has revealed that her real name is "Lipi Das". 5. Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, however, did not dispute that the girl produced before the Court today is the same girl on whose behalf this writ petition has been filed, mentioning her name in the array of parties, as Chandni Yadav. 5. Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, however, did not dispute that the girl produced before the Court today is the same girl on whose behalf this writ petition has been filed, mentioning her name in the array of parties, as Chandni Yadav. He however, also could not dispute that further details given in the writ petition about girl that she is daughter of Sri Shyamji Yadav, resident of House No. 56, Meergunj, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Allahabad, may not be correct but this has been mentioned as per information given by Neetu Yadav, wife of late Raj Yadav, resident of House No. 56, Pahadi Gali, Meergunj, Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad, deponent of the affidavit who has sworn affidavit in support of writ petition. 6. The deponent of the affidavit has given her description as neighbour and friend of petitioner. She has filed this writ petition as pairokar, claiming that petitioner is also residing in the aforesaid house along with the deponent of the affidavit. 7. Since there was no dispute about identity of the girl who is also present before us, and has also stated that her correct name is "Lipi Das", though in the writ petition it is mentioned as Chandni Yadav, we have proceeded further treating the writ petition to have been filed on behalf of Lipi Das, whose name has wrongly been mentioned as "Chandni Yadav" in the writ petition. 8. The aforesaid girl when enquired by the Court, stated that she is major and her husband is also present in the Court. She said that she has been kept at Government Women Protection House at Agra, illegally, without her consent and she wants to stay and reside with her husband, Palash Das, son of Sri Sukumar Das, who is also present in the Court. In order to verify their identity, copy of Aadhar Card No. 340845744946 of Lipi Das, the girl, and Election Commission Identity Card No. UVU1815174 of Palash Das, husband of petitioner has also been produced before us, photocopies whereof have been taken on record. 9. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute that since the girl is major and duly married, therefore, cannot be kept, without her consent, at the Women Protection Centre at Agra and if she wants to go elsewhere she should be free to do so. 10. 9. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute that since the girl is major and duly married, therefore, cannot be kept, without her consent, at the Women Protection Centre at Agra and if she wants to go elsewhere she should be free to do so. 10. This Court also enquired from the learned A.G.A., under which provision she was kept in Government Women Protection Centre, Agra, in pursuance whereof reliance was placed by him on Section 17 of Act, 1956, stating that learned Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order and, therefore, she has been kept in the aforesaid Centre. Proviso to sub Section 17 of the Act, 1956 makes it clear that the order of Magistrate gives authorized detention of a person for a period not beyond three weeks, but in the present case the girl has been kept at Government Women Protection Centre for the last more than seven months, for which despite repeated query, learned A.G.A. could not show any authority of law whereunder it has been done. It is thus clear that the girl has been detained in Government Women Protection Centre, Agra for the last about six months, illegally and unauthorizedly without any authority of law, which is highly condemnable and should be deprecated. This is clearly violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In our view, this illegal and unauthorized detention of the girl without her consent at Government Women Protection Centre at Agra, not only deserves to be declared illegal, after expiry of three weeks from the date of order passed by the Magistrate under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1956, but due compensation is also payable to aforesaid petitioner for illegal detention. 11. In a similar case, where a person in Jammu & Kashmir was detained illegally, the Court granted the victim monetary compensation relying on its earlier authority in Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Sebastian M. Hongray Vs. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1026. In another matter, when there was a custodial death of one Sawinder Singh Grover reported in Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, Re, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 450, Hon'ble Apex Court directed the State to pay compensation to the family of the deceased. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1026. In another matter, when there was a custodial death of one Sawinder Singh Grover reported in Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, Re, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 450, Hon'ble Apex Court directed the State to pay compensation to the family of the deceased. In the present case, fundamental right of liberty of petitioner, enshrined by Article 21 of the Constitution, has been violated with impunity by the State by detaining her in Government Protection Centre at Agra without her consent beyond the period for which the State was authorized under the order passed by the Magistrate. It is also not the case of the respondents that after the order passed by the Magistrate, almost seven months back there was any further order confirming the valid authority of detention of petitioner in the aforesaid Home. 12. We, therefore, allow this habeas corpus petition, set free the girl Lipi Das, Aadhar Card No. 340845744946. She would be free to go to any place of her choice. Since she has expressed her option to go with her husband Palash Das, who is also present, she is permitted to accompany him. We also direct respondents police authorities to ensure appropriate escort to accompany the petitioner and her husband so that they may safely reach their place of residence in West Bengal. 13. In order to compensate petitioner for her illegal and unauthorized detention, we award the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lacs) against the State, which shall be paid by the State in the name of Lipi Das, wife of Palash Das, and a demand draft in her name of the aforesaid amount shall be ensured to be received by her within one month. The State, however, shall be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the erring official respondents found responsible for such illegal and unauthorized detention, after inquiry as per rules. 14. Before parting, we also cannot ignore to notice the facts that the affidavit accompanying writ petition has been sworn by one Neetu Yadav, aged about 39 years, wife of late Raj Yadav, resident of House No. 56, Pahadi Gali, Meergunj, Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad, giving wholly incorrect and wrong facts which included not only the name of petitioner but her parentage, address etc. The girl has specifically stated that she is not resident of Meergunj, Allahabad, and she expressed totally unacquaintance to the deponent of the affidavit. It is thus clear that the aforesaid deponent has filed a false affidavit before the Court. Filing of a false affidavit intentionally before this Court amounts to criminal contempt. Therefore, we issue notice to Neetu Yadav to show cause as to why a proceeding for criminal contempt be not initiated against her and she be not punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The criminal contempt proceeding shall be registered by the Registry separately. The aforesaid contemnor shall file reply within three weeks of issuing notice. This matter shall be listed before the appropriate Bench after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice for further proceedings in the matter of criminal contempt.