Detention of individuals in Nari Niketan against their wishes, even if they are minors, is not justified under Sections 97 and 171, Cr. P. C. or any other provision.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to set her at liberty immediately and a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to produce her before this Court.

( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that she is the wife of Damodar Das with whom she married in the month of February, 2002 with her own free will and she changed her name as Shanti and started living with her husband. After her marriage with Damodar Das she conceived and is in a family way. The petitioner went to her parental place in the month of May, 2002 where she was beaten and threatened with dire consequences for marrying a Hindu boy. She was asked to severe all her relations with Damodar Das. When she refused to do so, she was assaulted and threatened that her husband would be sent to jail. However, the petitioner escaped from her parental house and reached her in-laws place on 18-8-2002 and after some time she started living at Pilibhit. Thereafter, her father, uncle and brother along with some other relatives came to the house of petitioner and scolded her saying that she had lowered down their image and reputation. They tried to forcibly take her away, but she was saved by the neighbours. The petitioner along with her husband went to the police station to lodge report of the occurrence, but her report was not written by the police. She was very much disappointed and shocked. Then she filed a complaint against the accused persons, which was registered as Case No. 1543 of 2000 under Sections 323, 304, 504 and 452, IPC and got her statement recorded under Section 200, Cr. P. C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Pilibhit. The father of the petitioner lodged a FIR against her husband under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC. In the said case her husband was released on bail on 1-11-2002. The petitioner was detained by the police and therefore her father-in-law made an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Bareilly in connection with Case Crime No. 335 of 2002 under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, P. S. Nababganj, district Bareilly and also made an application for the custody of the petitioner. The A. C. J. M. VII, Bareilly passed an order on 30-9-2002 summoning the petitioner fixing 30-10-2002. However, on the request of father-in-law of the petitioner the case was fixed for 7-10-2002 and thereafter on 8-10-2002. On 8-10-2002 the Magistrate passed an order directing the police to set the petitioner at liberty to go to place of her choice. Father and brother of the petitioner filed revision against the order of the Magistrate before Sessions Judge. The Revisional Court stayed the order of the Magistrate and the petitioner is languishing in Nari Niketan where she had been tortured and beaten.

( 3 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by Km. Tahira Begum, In-charge Assistant Superintendent, Nari Niketan, district Bareilly deposing that the petitioner was admitted in Nari Niketan by the order of the Court and she had not been tortured or ill treated.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri Sarvesh, learend counsel for the petitioner, Mohd. Shabbir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned A. G. A. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was produced before A. C. J. M. Court No. 7, Bareilly in connection with Case Crime No. 335 of 2002 under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC on 8-10-2002. The learned A. C. J. M. perused the case diary and medical report. According to medical report the age of the petitioner was found as 17 years. Considering the above age ascertained on ossification of bone test and giving grace of two years on both sides and the statement of the petitioner the learned Magistrate directed to release the petitioner to go to place of her choice vide order dated 8-10-2002. Annexure-3. It is also not disputed that thereafter Nanhe, respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document