ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1655/2017 under Section 482 has been preferred for quashing the registration and further proceedings/investigation of FIR dated 18.01.2017 bearing No. 36/2017 of Merta Road Police Station, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A IPC and; S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2188/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned members of the District Child Welfare Committee, Nagaur in the matter of FIR No. 36/2017 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, whereby, the girl, Suman has been ordered to be sent to Nari Niketan, Ajmer. 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that Ramchandra, the father of girl-Suman lodged a complaint against petitioner-Om Prakash levelling allegation of abducting his daughter, Suman. FIR No. 36/2017 has been registered at Police Station, Merta Road, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Both the petitioners have produced the number of documents, including the admission application dated 01.07.2002, wherein the date of birth of the girl, Suman has been recorded as 05.07.1998; in another document i.e. the Certificate of the Board of Secondary Education, the date of birth of the girl has been recorded as 05.04.2000. As per the ration card, her age is 7 years as on 20.06.2006 and in another admission document, the date of birth of the girl has been recorded as 04.07.1998. 3. On lodging of the FIR, the girl refused to go with her parents, as she stated that she had already married petitioner-Om Prakash and the marriage certificate is also on record. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded before the learned court below, in which the girl has stated that as she has solemnized the marriage with petitioner-Om Prakash on her own free will, she wants to go with the boy i.e. petitioner-Om Prakash. The said statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 is also on record. 4. A joint petition was preferred by the girl-Suman and the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them, and another petition was also filed against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Welfare Committee, Nagaur, whereby the girl, Suman was ordered to be kept in Nari Niketan, Ajmer. 5. 4. A joint petition was preferred by the girl-Suman and the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them, and another petition was also filed against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Welfare Committee, Nagaur, whereby the girl, Suman was ordered to be kept in Nari Niketan, Ajmer. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Prakash & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 20 relevant portion of which reads as under:- "5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 27.10.2014, 12.11.2014 and 13.11.2014, the respondent No.2 is present in Court from Nari Niketan, Jodhpur. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 13.11.2014, the Investigating Officer has investigated the factum of marriage solemnized between respondent No. 2 and petitioner Prakash. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of as many as 9 witnesses including the photographer and Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat, who have verified the factum of marriage of petitioner - Prakash and Sayeta - respondent No.2. The police has also got the respondent No.2 medically examined at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for ascertaining her age. The Medical Jurist of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur after radiological examination has opined that her age is 17 to 19 years. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 the respondent No.2 has stated that her age is 19 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bhola Ram has argued that as per admission form submitted at the time of admission of the respondent No.2 in the school, her date of birth is 4.7.2000 and, therefore, she is minor. It is contended that looking to the fact that the respondent No.2 is minor, his father Bhola Ram is entitled for her custody. It noticed that the police has also recorded the statement of Principal of school, where the respondent No.2 was admitted by her father in the year 2006 and in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 he has specifically stated that at the time of admission of respondent No.2 in the school, her father has written her date of birth as per his own guess and correct date of birth has not been recorded. Looking to these facts and circumstances of this case, much reliance cannot be placed on the school certificate of the respondent No.2. 7. Looking to these facts and circumstances of this case, much reliance cannot be placed on the school certificate of the respondent No.2. 7. Today, the respondent No.2 is present in person and on asking by the Court, she has informed that her marriage has been solemnized with the petitioner - Prakash and she wants to go with him. Certain photographs regarding the marriage of respondent No.2 and petitioner-Prakash are also available in the case diary. 8. Looking all these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is convinced that at the time of incident, the respondent No.2 Sayeta was major and her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner - Prakash and, therefore, the petitioner Prakash is entitled for her custody as being her husband. 9. In view of above discussions, the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2846/2014 filed by petitioner - Prakash is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the court below is hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the respondent No.2, being major, is free to go with her husband Prakash. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2510/2014 filed by Bhola Ram is dismissed. 10. Mr. Bhanwar Lal Shishodia, C.O., Police Station, Sojat, present in person, is directed to handover the custody of the respondent No.2 Sayeta to Prakash and ensure that suitable protection would be given to them to reach their destination." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 122, relevant portion of which reads as under:- "7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in connection with the investigation conducted by the police into the allegations contained in FIR No. 169/2014 of Police Station, Siwana. 8. When Ms. Geeta was produced before the court by the Investigating Officer on 09.07.2014, she refused to go with her father and, therefore, the Court has ordered that she may be sent to Balika Sudhar Grah, Jodhpur. On 11.07.2014, statements of Ms. Geeta were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, 1973 before the court below, wherein she has clearly stated that she was married to the petitioner and she wants to live with him. On 11.07.2014, statements of Ms. Geeta were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, 1973 before the court below, wherein she has clearly stated that she was married to the petitioner and she wants to live with him. In her statements, she has further stated that her father wants to marry her with someone else and, therefore, this false FIR has been filed against the petitioner. 9. From the case diary, it reveals that for the purpose of ascertaining the age of Ms. Geeta, the police has collected a Transfer Certificate (T.C.) issued by the Headmaster of Government Upper Primary School, Chulli Bera (Dharna) on 05.07.2014. From the said Transfer Certificate, it is not clear that who had recorded the date of birth of Ms. Geeta as 15.05.1998 at the time of her admission in the said school. A photostat of admission form said to have been submitted at the time of admission of Ms. Geeta in school is also available on case diary, however, in place of signature of parent/guardian, there are signatures of one Ranchhod Ram. The Investigating Officer present in person has informed that Ranchhod Ram is elder brother of Ms. Geeta but has fairly conceded that at the time of submission of admission form of Ms. Geeta, he was of 10-11 years. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the date of birth of Ms. Geeta was recorded by her parents or guardian at the time of her admission in the school. 10. Looking to the above facts and circumstance, it cannot be concluded that the exact date of birth of Ms. Geeta is 15.05.1998 and she was minor at the time of incident. It is also to be noticed that the Transfer Certificate was issued on 05.07.2014 and apparently, there was no occasion to obtain Transfer Certificate on 05.07.2014 after filing of the FIR No.169/2014 dated 04.7.2014. On the other hand, from her physical appearance and as per her statement recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C,, 1973 she appears to be more than 18 years of age. 11. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that Ms. Geeta was just 16 years old at the time of incident particularly when she appears to be of 18 years. On earlier occasions and today also, Ms. 11. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that Ms. Geeta was just 16 years old at the time of incident particularly when she appears to be of 18 years. On earlier occasions and today also, Ms. Geeta is present before this Court and categorically stated that she is wife of the petitioner and wants to live with him. 12. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwana, District Barmer is set aside. The girl Ms. Geeta is set at liberty to go wherever she wants. The police is directed to provide her protection until she reaches at her destination of her choice." 7. 13. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwana, District Barmer is set aside. The girl Ms. Geeta is set at liberty to go wherever she wants. The police is directed to provide her protection until she reaches at her destination of her choice." 7. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 43, wherein following order was passed:- vihykFkhZ eqds'k] tks fopkj.k U;k;ky;] fof'k"B U;k;k/kh'k] ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk lja{k.k vf/kfu;e] ckalokM+k esa yfEcr izdj.k la[;k 3@2014 esa vfHk;qDr Fkk ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 16-06-2014 ds rgr vihykFkhZ eqds'k dks vkjksfir vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 366 d] 376 Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 3@4 ySfxad vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk lja{k.k vf/kfu;e ls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gS] dh vkSj ls ;g vihy is'k dh xbZ gSA 2 & xr vkns'k fnuakd 07-10-2014 ds rgr vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dks ukjh fudsru ls ryc fd;k x;k Fkk] ftl ij js[kk 'kadj] Jherh fQjknks'k o Jherh Hkxor dqoaj] fjtoZ iqfyl ykbZu] mn;iqj us vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dks is'k fd;kA 3 & vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk us tkfgj fd;k fd mlus vihykFkhZ eqds'k ls viuh lgefr ls fookg dj fy;k gS vkSj mlds lkFk jguk pkgrh gSa mldh vk;q ds ckr iwNrkN dh xbZ rks vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk ds HkkbZ :ith dh mez 23 o"kZ gksuk crk;k x;k rFkk :ith ds tUe gksus ds pkj lky ckn vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dk tUe gksuk crk;k x;kA bl dze esa vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk ds firk dp: ds U;k;ky; esa gq, c;ku Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gSa rFkk vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dh jsfM;ksyksftdy fjiksVZ esa 20 o"kZ vk;q vafdr gSA bl dze esa tgka rd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk iz'u gS] fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ek= Ldwy izek.ki= esa vafdr tUe frfFk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dks vo;Ld ekuk gS] ysfdu fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g izdV fd;k fd vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk vius ekrk firk ds lkFk ugha tkuk pkgrh gSA bl dze esa izLrqr nLrkostkr dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk ls iwNrkN dh xbZA 4 & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Ldwy izek.ki= dh jks'kuh esa vU; lk{; ij foospu ugha fd;s tkus ,oa vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk ls dh xbZ iwNrkN dks /;ku es j[krs gq, Ldwy izek.ki= fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS rFkk vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk Lo;a dk Hkyk&cqjk le>us esa l{ke gksus rFkk HkkSfrd n`f"V ls o izLrqr nLrkostkr ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk o;Ld gksuk izrhr gksrh gSA 5 & mijksDr leLr rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ,ao jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5759/2014 Jugraj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 22-09-2014 dh jks'kuh esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ikbZ tkrh gSA 6 & ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ eqds'k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/kh{kd] ukjh fudsru] mn;iqj dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;ksD=h euh"kk dks mldh bPNkuqlkj bfPNr LFkku ij tkus ds fy;s Lora= dj fn;k tk,A bl gsrq vko';d i= vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk tkjh djds gsrq dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS rFkk ;g i= vkt gh tkjh fd;k tkosA mijksDr funsZ'kksa ds lkFk ;g vihy ,oa layXu LFkxu izkFkZuk i= fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 8. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the girl, Suman was summoned from the Nari Niketan, Ajmer to be present before this Court. The girl is present before this Court today. This Court also received an application filed on behalf of the father of the girl, in which the father of the girl gave in writing that he has no objection if the girl is allowed to be released from the Nari Niketan. 9. Since prima facie, the matter involves a girl, who is nearing 18 years of age and is a matured graduate girl, therefore, this Court thought it appropriate to summon the father of the girl to appear before this Court, so that his stand, which was there in the application could be further clarified. 10. Today, the girl, Suman and her father both are present in the Court. On asking, the father says that he does not want to take custody of the girl. However, he has no objection if she goes with the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash, though not happy about the circumstances, but probably made a statement out of his paternal instincts, which are natural in such circumstances. The girl Suman, who is also present in the Court has categorically stated that she wants to go with the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash. 11. However, he has no objection if she goes with the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash, though not happy about the circumstances, but probably made a statement out of his paternal instincts, which are natural in such circumstances. The girl Suman, who is also present in the Court has categorically stated that she wants to go with the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the application preferred by the father of the girl, Suman and the oral submissions made by him and the girl before this Court, as also after perusing the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 along with all other documents in the petition and the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that since the girl, Suman is matured and is nearing 18 years of age on all counts and is herself a graduate, therefore, it would not be appropriate to keep her in the Nari Niketan, where all her development and precious moments of life would be lost due to the custody of the Nari Niketan. 12. Thus, in the larger interest of justice and looking into the overall circumstances, and last but not the least, the statement made by the father of the girl before this Court, this Court is inclined to allow S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2188/2017 and the same is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Child Welfare Committee, Nagaur is quashed and set aside. All the authorities concerned are directed to allow the girl, Suman, who is also one of the petitioners in one of the petitions, to go with the boy i.e. petitioner Om-Prakash, who claims to be her husband, which is also reflected from the marriage certificate is on record. The SHO of the concerned police Station is also directed to ensure that the girl, Suman does not bear any threat from any quarters, and if so required, the SHO concerned shall take appropriate measures for protection of the girl, Suman. 13. As far as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1655/2017 seeking quashing of the FIR is concerned, the same is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority to take this order on record and accordingly, complete the investigation in FIR No.36/2017 registered at Merta Road Police Station, District Nagaur, strictly in accordance with law. 13. As far as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1655/2017 seeking quashing of the FIR is concerned, the same is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority to take this order on record and accordingly, complete the investigation in FIR No.36/2017 registered at Merta Road Police Station, District Nagaur, strictly in accordance with law. It is needless to say that if any kind of arrest is proposed in relation to petitioner-Om Prakash, then fifteen days' notice shall be given to him before making such arrest. There shall be liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case need arises.