Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4152 (ALL)

Geeta v. State of U. P.

2016-12-22

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT The present Habeas Corpus petition has been preferred on behalf of Sushri Geeta through one Tinku alias Ram Singh claiming to be husband of the petitioner Sushri Geeta. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Geeta was major and on her own sweet will, she performed marriage with Tinku alias Ram Singh. Since, the marriage was against the wishes of family members, the F.I.R. was lodged and registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) IPC and 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly. The marriage was also registered and the certificate was issued by Arya Samaj Mandir. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.3.2016 passed by Child Welfare Committee, Bareilly directing to keep the petitioner in custody of Government Women Shelter Home, is liable to be quashed and further direction be issued to release the petitioner forthwith. Learned AGA opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the record including the statement of Sushri Geeta and according to school certificate of Sushri Geeta, her date of birth is 25.8.2001, hence, she is minor. According to her, she has passed class VIII. In those cases, where there is a dispute regarding the date of birth or there is a difference in the school certificate and medical report, the date of birth of the victim/child has to be determined in view of the provision of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, according to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 2013(7) SCC 263 : Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, paragraph 22 and 23 and 2013 (4) SCC 376 : Mahadev Vs. State of Maharastra, para 12 and 13. The provision of Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 are quoted herein below: - "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? State of Maharastra, para 12 and 13. The provision of Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 are quoted herein below: - "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law." In view of the fact, the present petition is devoid of merits. However, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budaun is expected to look into the matter to ensure free, fair and independent investigation without influence of any person or authority and further to ensure that any innocent person be not harassed and the report be submitted only against guilty person on the basis of material collected during investigation, within a reasonable period. However, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budaun is expected to look into the matter to ensure free, fair and independent investigation without influence of any person or authority and further to ensure that any innocent person be not harassed and the report be submitted only against guilty person on the basis of material collected during investigation, within a reasonable period. The I.O. concerned will also consider that if the petitioner is minor, under which circumstances and under which authority, the marriage certificate was issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Damodar Puram, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly and appropriate action be taken against the said Authority, in accordance with law. With aforesaid observation, the present petition is hereby dismissed.