By the Court.—This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police who has questioned the correctness of the order dated 3rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in compliance whereof the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut has proceeded to command the concerned authority to deduct salary of two months that has been imposed as a pecuniary punishment by the learned Magistrate, in the purported exercise of powers of Section 29 of the U.P. Police Act, 1861.

3. The punishment has been imposed on an allegation that the petitioner has wilfully committed breach of duty by not complying with the order of the Magistrate in a criminal case which involved the abduction and custody of a minor girl.

4. An F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363/364 I.P.C. being case crime No. 311 of 2009. The alleged minor Km. Rukhsar alongwith the accused Saleem filed Writ Petition No. 10884 of 2009 for staying their arrest and consequently this Court vide order dated 16th June 2009 directed that the arrest of the petitioners therein namely Rukhsar and Saleem shall remain stayed provided they cooperate with the investigation. The other co-accused also filed a writ petition challenging the same F.I. R. in which an order was passed that the victim Km. Rukhsar shall appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 30 days for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereupon the Magistrate shall proceed to record the same in the presence of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station for identification and thereafter she shall be medically examined. This was to be attended to by the Investigating Officer.

5. The other co-accused who appear to be the family members of Saleem, were given a protection of a stay from arrest till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

6. As a consequence of the said order dated 24th June 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 11624 of 2009 the statement of the accused was recorded on 13th August 2009 and the victim did not support the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, she said that she had voluntarily accompanied the co-accused Saleem and had also married him. The medical report also indicated that she was above 18 years of age.

7. The then Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass an appropriate order with regard to her custody. Another application was filed by the mother of the victim that she may be given custody, upon which the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 24th August 2009 indicating that since the date of birth of the victim was 15th January 1995 and no document or evidence to the contrary had been produced, the victim appears to be a minor. The custody was therefore ordered in favour of the mother.

8. It is to be noted that after the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Court on 13th August 2009 the victim was not in the custody of the police and she had a protection of arrest from this Court. The then Investigating Officer Malkhan Singh was transferred and the petitioner is stated to have taken charge of the investigation of the case on 24th September 2009 when he filed a charge-sheet.

9. The learned Magistrate on 2nd January, 2010 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why salary be not deducted by taking action under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 as there was a non-compliance of the order dated 24.8.2009. The petitioner submitted his reply. The Superintendent of Police had also made an enquiry into this and a report was submitted on 8th January 2010 indicating that in view of the orders passed by this Court and the statement of the victim, it was evident that the order dated 24.8.2009 could not have been complied with as Km. Rukhsar had gone away with Saleem.

10. The Magist