The determination of a disputed question of fact, such as the age of the alleged kidnapped girl and the validity of the marriage, should be left to the concerned Magistrate based on evidence.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. Petitioners, who are five in number, have approached this Court for quashing of the first information report dated 12.05.2015, registered as Case Crime No.601 of 2015, under Sections 363 & 366 IPC at Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad.

3. Petitioner no.2, Smt. Sara Khan @ Sakshi Jain daughter of Jitendra Kumar Jain claims that she is major and on her own freewill she has entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no.1, Salman Khan son of Tanveer Husain. Petitioners are contending before this Court that as far as petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are major and have entered into matrimonial alliance on their own freewill, as such, no offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC is made out. The petitioner no.3 & 4 are brothers and petitioner no.5 is mother of the petitioner no.1.

4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.3 have resisted that request that has been made on behalf of petitioners by contending that first information report in question proceeds to describe the girl in question to be a minor.

5. Petitioner no.2, Smt. Sara Khan @ Sakshi Jain and petitioner no.1, Salman Khan are present in Court today and both have been identified by Sri Hridaya Narain Singh, Advocate and they are claiming that they have voluntarily married.

6. This Court proceeds to peruse the first information report and is of the considered view that such disputed question of fact of age cannot be gone into by this court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as to whether Smt. Sara Khan @ Sakshi Jain daughter of Jitendra Kumar Jain is minor or major and such disputed question of fact can always be determined on the basis of evidence adduced before the concerned Magistrate.

7. In view of the above no case for quashing of the first information report is made out. The prayer in that regard is rejected. However, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged kidnapped girl is major and she has performed the marriage with her freewill and consent, it is directed that if the alleged kidnapped girl appears/is produced before the court of learned Magistrate concerned, within a month from today, he shall satisfy himself as to whether the girl is major or not and shall record her statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. In case of default, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners.

8. If the kidnapped girl is found to be major and she does not support the F.I.R. version, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In case, the alleged kidnapped girl appears to be minor or if she is major but supports the prosecution version, it shall be open to the police authority to arrest the accused.

9. It is directed that issue of custody of the alleged kidnapped girl shall be decided by the learned Magistrate concerned, in accordance with law.

10. It is further directed that in case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide them protection for the purposes of appearing before the court concerned to record the statement of the kidnapped girl under section 164 Cr.P.C., and for medical examination, the same shall be provided.

With the above observations/directions writ petition stands disposed of.