We have heard Sri Pradeep Kumar VI, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, the learned AGA for the State.

The petitioner Smt. Reena has filed the present petition seeking direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 6-6-2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Maharajganj as also to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to produce Smt. Reena before this Court.

2. Before we issue any direction it is pertinent to point out that case crime no. 1610 of 2011 was registered under sections 363, 366, 376 etc. I. P.C. by the father of the petitioner alleging that petitioner was taken and enticed away by Rabdullah son of Habibullah in the night of 3-3-2012 alongwith ornaments valued at Rs.10,000/- and cash in the sum of Rs. 31,000/-. The son of the informant who was coming from somewhere met the accused of the present petition and stopped them but the accused brandished a knife and threatened him of of being killed.

3. It appears that the lady, petitioner was apprehended by the police and was produced before the Sub Division Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj. The father of the lady was also present in the court. He filed a petition seeking custody of his daughter. The statement of the petitioner was recorded and that of her father was also recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj. In her statement the petitioner, Smt. Reena stated that she was major and she had eloped with accused Rabdullah and had gone into his house to reside there. The father of the petitioner, Hari Lal, in his statement also stated that his daughter had eloped with Rabdullah on 3-3-2011 and refused to take the petitioner with him. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found that the date of birth of the petitioner, Smt. Reena, as recorded in the certificate was 3-4-1998. As such, she was only 13 years of age when her father was not ready to take her back who was desirous that her custody be authorised to the Nari Niketan Jaitpura, District ? Varanasi.

4. We find from facts of the case that it was a pure and simple case of elopement of petitioner, Smt. Reena with Rabdullah and the petitioner, thereafter went straight away to his house from where she appears recovered. There was some dispute in respect of the age of the girl but we find from argument appearing at page 20 of the present petition that the Chief Medical Officer, Maharajganj had assessed her 18 years of age. Thus, the lady was undisputedly above 18 years of age, if we add three years to the medically assessed age. In our considered view in case of being a conflict between the age recorded in any school document and that assessed by the doctor then only for the present purposes, the court should lean towards acting upon the opinion of the doctor furnished after carrying out scientific tests to assess the age of a victim. This is necessary as liberty of a person has to be protected. No person could be deprived of his liberty unless reasonable procedure has been adopted. Medical opinion on age may not be exact, but it is generally acceptance and it is based on scientific method of assessing the age. As such, inspite of there being some sort of margin in assessing the age and actual age, there could be chances that the assessed age is almost exact.

5. We have already noted that the personal liberty of a person should be paramount consideration in such cases and keeping that in view and for protecting the personal liberty of a person, the court should lean towards considering the medical age than to consider the age which is recorded in school documents. Besides, there is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner, Smt. Reena had eloped with Rabdullah on 3-3-2011 and had went into his house and was living there. We very often refer to S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 SC 942to point out the distinction between an act of elopement and act of taking or enticing away a woman below 18 ye