JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer in this petition is to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 3rd July, 2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POSCO Act") and for release of petitioner from Karuna Mahila Vastigruha, Nagpur. It is the case of petitioner that she is permanent resident of State of Rajasthan and about 15 months prior to the incident, had come to Nagpur to meet her relative. According to information received by police from the Members of N.G.O. namely 'Freedom Firm' in the month of November, 2016 that some minor girls are forced into the business of prostitution, Officers of Lakadganj Police Station, on 23.11.2016, after locating the location of such minor girls, effected raid in one house situated in Bangde lane and arrested some females since were found indulged into such business of running of brothel and registered Crime No.338/2016 (F.I.R. No. 1918/2016) for the offences under sections 344, 355-A, 372, 373, 370-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (here-in-after referred to as "the PITA Act of 1956"). We find it to be the case of respondents that, in raid carried out as aforesaid, petitioner was one of the victims who was rescued by police, aged 17 years and was accordingly produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur who, by an Order dt. 24.11.2016, detained petitioner in Karuna Mahila Vastigruha till 9.12.2016 and issued directions to Probation Officer to submit report on or before 3.12.2016 for passing further orders with regards to further detention of petitioner if required. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that, after being detained as aforesaid and in-spite of Probation Officer submitting report on 3.12.2016, no action was taken for release of petitioner, in-spite of the fact that Hema Kanjar, paternal aunt of petitioner, filed an application seeking her custody, but was refused to obtain the same. According to petitioner, before considering such application, petitioner's statement was recorded, wherein she voluntarily stated that she wanted to go with said Hema Kanjar, who is her maternal aunt. However, in spite of such voluntary statement by petitioner, who is major, application came to be rejected by the impugned order. According to petitioner, before considering such application, petitioner's statement was recorded, wherein she voluntarily stated that she wanted to go with said Hema Kanjar, who is her maternal aunt. However, in spite of such voluntary statement by petitioner, who is major, application came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State submitted that, after petitioner was rescued from the brothel, who is original resident of State of Rajasthan, she, as required under the law, was produced before the Competent Court and was sent to rescue home and has relied upon certain order in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013 passed on 1.3.2018, filed by one of the N.G.Os. before this Court on the same subject-matter i.e. sale of minor girls from Rajasthan for indulging them in prostitution all over India, specially in Maharashtra, in which Division Bench of this Court restrained release of girls found involved in this case, until further orders of the Court. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, thus, by referring to its affidavit-in-reply contended that the impugned order detaining the petitioner for a period of one year is dt. 3.7.2017, however, while same was in force, since order in P.I.L. on 1.3.2018 as aforesaid came to be passed, wherein name of petitioner herein is also included, directing detention of petitioner until further orders, she continued in the protective home. It is, thus, contended that, after passing of impugned order, since orders in the P.I.L. as aforesaid were in force, petitioner was continued in detention at Karuna Mahila Vastigruha, Nagpur and as such, no illegality can be attributed to respondent. 5A. In the background of above facts, this Court while considering the petition, on 19.9.2018 passed the following order : "Admittedly, P.I.L. No. 4/2013 is pending before Division Bench and some orders are passed therein and in particular, para 14 of the Order dated 1/3/2018 reads as under: "Until further orders of this Court in the matter though proceedings, if any, for release of five girls in FIR numbers mentioned supra may go on, orders of release, if any, shall not be given effect to without further orders of this Court in the matter. In that view of the matter, stand over to 21/11/2018 with liberty to learned Counsel for petitioner to mention the matter in the event aforesaid P.I.L. is decided earlier than the next date." 6. Petitioner thereafter took out Criminal Application No. 1821 of 2018 in P.I.L. No. 4/2013, wherein Division Bench of this Court on 29.11.2018 passed the following order. "The question as to whether victim girl Kajal is to be released is required to be decided in Writ Petition No. 1180/2017. Our attention is invited to section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to urge that the procedure contemplated therein is required to be followed particularly when the order impugned in the said petition is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under section 17 of the said Act. We are, therefore, of the view - that the observation made by this Court in para 14 of the Order dated 1.3.2018 passed in P.I.L. No. 4/2013 shall not come in the way of the parties and the Division Bench shall be at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner on its own merits. The application stands disposed of." 7. Accordingly, we have heard this petition and find that, after the petitioner came to be rescued from brothel on 23.11.2016, she was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.11.2016, on which day she came to be committed to Karuna Mahila Vastigruha, Nagpur, the protective home for her safe custody, as was found in need of care and protection and for her release, her maternal aunt filed Misc. Criminal Application No.1135 of 2017 seeking her custody claiming her to be major, which application, after considering documents including statement of petitioner, came to be rejected by the impugned order, by which petitioner was directed to be kept in protective home for further period of one year from 3.7.2017. 8. As petitioner's detention was further continued in the protection home without orders by Competent Court to that effect after 3.7.2017, petitioner took out Criminal Application No.193 of 2018 to seek leave to amend the petition directing respondent to pay compensation of Rs.10 Lacs for illegal detention from 3.7.2018 onwards, which application was ordered to be considered while hearing writ petition finally. So far as claim of petitioner for grant of compensation as aforesaid is concerned, it is material to note that though period of one year from the date of her detention in protective home has expired on 3.7.2018, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that petitioner was detained illegally or without order of Court, inasmuch as, from the order passed by Division Bench in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013, dt. 1.3.2018, respondents were restrained from releasing the victim, who was rescued in the raid on 23.11.2016, until further orders of the Court. Admittedly, this petition is pending and it is only after respondent in its reply pointed out that, in the event petitioner requires present petition to be decided earlier, she may take out necessary application, petitioner adopted said recourse by filing Criminal Application No. 1821 of 2018, which came to be allowed on 29.11.2018 observing that Order dt. 1.3.2018 passed in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013 shall not come in way of parties to petition and same be accordingly decided on merits. Accordingly, petition is thus considered. In the light of facts involved in the petition, for the purpose of present petition, it is necessary to understand Scheme of section 17 of the PITA Act of 1956. 9. Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the PITA Act of 1956 provides that whenever special police officer removes a person under section 15 or a person is removed under section 16, he or she is required to be produced before nearest Magistrate of any class. The said Magistrate is enjoined to pass such order as he deems fit for the safe custody of the woman or the person until the person is produced before the appropriate Magistrate. The said section puts a restriction that detention cannot be allowed for a period exceeding ten days. Sub-section (2) provides that appropriate Magistrate shall after giving the person opportunity of being heard cause an enquiry to be made as to correctness of the information received under section 16(1), the age, character and antecedents of the person and the suitability of said person's parents, guardian or husband for taking charge of the person. He may direct a Probation Officer to enquire into the above circumstances. Sub-section (3) authorise the Magistrate to pass an order for safe custody of the person pending the enquiry under sub-section (2). He may direct a Probation Officer to enquire into the above circumstances. Sub-section (3) authorise the Magistrate to pass an order for safe custody of the person pending the enquiry under sub-section (2). Proviso of sub-section (3) lays that no person shall be in custody for the period exceeding three weeks from the date of such order. Sub-section (4) deals with the power of the Magistrate after enquiry is completed under sub-section (2). If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the information is correct and the person is in need of care and protection, he may authorise the detention of such person for such period being not less than one year and not more than three years in Protective Home or in such other custody-sub-section (5) provides that while discharging function under sub-section (2) the learned Magistrate may summon five respectable persons, three of whom wherever practicable, be women to assist him. Order under sub-section (4) is made an appealable order by virtue of sub-section (6). 10. From the record filed in support of the petition, we find that, after passing the impugned Order, dt. 3.7.2017, no order is passed with regards to further detention of petitioner and as such, on the basis of impugned order, petitioner continued in the protective home after expiry of one year which has expired on 3.7.2018. Admittedly, since no such order is on record, petition is, thus, liable to be partly allowed thereby directing immediate release of petitioner. 11. However, so far as case of petitioner for grant of compensation of Rs. Ten Lacs is concerned, we are not inclined to grant the same in view of admitted fact of further detention of petitioner in Karuna Mahila Vastigruha, Nagpur on the basis of Order, dt. 1.3.2018 passed by this Court in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013 and it is only on 29.11.2018, after further order came to be passed for considering present petition independently, same is duly considered. As such, even if there is no order passed detaining petitioner, her detention after expiry of period of one year from the date of impugned Order dt. 3.7.2017 cannot said to be illegal as, from 3.7.2018 onwards, petitioner was continued under detention in view of Order dt. 1.3.2018 passed in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013 and the petition is thereafter heard after pointing Order dt. 29.11.2018 as aforesaid. 3.7.2017 cannot said to be illegal as, from 3.7.2018 onwards, petitioner was continued under detention in view of Order dt. 1.3.2018 passed in P.I.L. No. 4 of 2013 and the petition is thereafter heard after pointing Order dt. 29.11.2018 as aforesaid. In the circumstances, no case is made out for grant of compensation for alleged illegal detention. In the circumstances, petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to release petitioner forthwith from Karuna Mahila Vastigruha. However, petitioner's claim for compensation stands rejected. In view of disposal of the petition itself, Criminal Application No. 193 of 2018 for leave to amend the petition is disposed of.