Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Revision No. 518 of 2018 by which he has set aside the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa in connection with Nagarnausa P. S. Case No. 148 of 2018 registered under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under the Muslim law, a girl having attended puberty can marry without consent of her parents and enter into contract of marriage, which is a civil contract. As per radiological, dental and gynaecological findings of the medical board and also as per her own statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’), the age of the petitioner is within 18-19 years. Under the circumstances, the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 11.12.2018 had rightly released the petitioner from the After Care Home treating her to be major. He has contended that while passing the impugned order, the revisional court completely failed to appreciate the report of the medical board and the statement made by the petitioner under Section 164 of the CrPC. It has erroneously held that the petitioner is a minor and has set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The date of birth given in the Matriculation Certificate and Aadhar Card should not have been believed as it was given by the respondent-father of the petitioner wrongly.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 submitted that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are erroneous. The marriage of the petitioner has not taken place as per muslim law. He submitted that from perusal of Aadhar card, it would be evident that at the time of filing of the writ application, the petitioner was aged about 17 years. The certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board would show that the date of birth of the petitioner in the school register is 15.02.2002. He has further contended that in Nagarnausa P. S. Case no. 148 of 2018, on completion of investigation, the police have already submitted charge-sheet under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code against Dilraj Kumar @ Bhupendra Paswan @ Upendra Paswan. The investigation report would also indicate that the petitioner is a minor and, thus, the order directing her release from the After Care Home was illegal. Hence, the same has rightly been set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that revisional order is in consonance with the order dated 19.09.2016 passed in CrWJC No. 683 of 2016 wherein this Court had set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate whereby the custody of the minor was ordered to be handed over to the brother-in-law of the accused charged under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that while passing the order, this Court had put reliance on the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the victim.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent no. 8 had submitted a written report before the officer-in-charge, Nagarnausa on the basis of which Nagarnausa P. S. Case No. 148 of 2018 was registered under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code against two accused persons, namely, Bhupendra Paswan @ Dilraj Kumar @ Upendra Paswan and Niranjan Paswan. The informant had stated in his report that his daughter (the petitioner) aged about 16 years had gone to the government hospital, but she did not return till 6 p.m.. Thereafter, he and his wife searched for their daughter, but failed to locate her. He contacted his relatives on phone and made an inquiry from them regarding whereabouts of his daughter.