By the Court.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing order dated 7.1.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, bearing Case Crime No. 510 of 2014 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kasimpur, district Hardoi.

2. This petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No. 4 (Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Parag Narain Road, Lucknow) to release the petitioner.

3. Mother of the petitioner (respondent No. 3) has been served twice, however, has not put in appearance, either in person or through her Counsel.

4. The facts of the case, as they emerge from the available record, are required to be noticed. Allegedly, the petitioner got married to Bauwa alias Suneel Kumar Singh son of Kallu of her own free will and accord. The marriage, however, has not been accepted by respondent No. 3 (mother of the petitioner). Criminal proceedings have been initiated, bearing Case Crime No. 510 of 2014 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi (Annexure 2).

5. It appears that the petitioner and her husband had earlier approached this Court for quashing of the First Information Report (Supra) by way of filing Writ Petition No. 10460 of 2014. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 17th October 2014.

6. A perusal of order dated 17th October 2014 indicates that the petitioner claimed that she has attained age of majority, and of her free will entered into matrimonial alliance with Suneel Kumar Singh. No offence under Section 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly is made out.

7. The State Counsel opposed the contention of the petitioner on the ground that as per the F.I.R. the girl was a minor.

8. The Court directed that statement of the girl be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Magistrate was directed to satisfy himself as to whether the girl has attained age of majority or not. It has been further observed that in case the girl is found to be major and does not support the F.I.R. version, the petitioner be not arrested till filing of report by the police under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. In case the girl appears to be a minor, it shall be open to police to arrest the accused. It was directed that custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall be decided by the Magistrate concerned, in accordance with law.

9. Evidently, in deference to order of the Court referred to above, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate, vide order dated 7.1.2015 (Annexure 1) issued a direction to confine the petitioner in Nari Niketan, Parag Narain Road, Lucknow (respondent No. 4).

10. Perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 7.1.2015 (Annexure 1) indicates that at one place, the petitioner has said that she had passed IVth class, at another place, she has said that she had passed Vth Class. Date of birth of the petitioner, as given at various stages, is also different viz. 12.12.1997, 6.6.1999 and 6.6.2000.

11. It appears that in the course of investigation, the petitioner was also subjected to ossification test, in which her age has been determined as 18 years.

12. The plea of mother of the petitioner, before the Magistrate, as is recorded in Annexure 1 is that the petitioner is 13-14 years of age.

13. The Magistrate, for considering the age of the petitioner has relied on the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in High School certificate, which is 6.6.2000. It has been concluded that the petitioner was a minor on the date of incident i.e. 30.11.2013. No legally tenable reason has been given to disregard the date of birth recorded in other school certificate or the ossification test report.

14. In the course of investigation, statement of the petitioner has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been placed on record as Annexure 7. The petitioner gave her statement to the effect that she has studied up to IVth class. On 12.8.2014 i