Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2970
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Het Singh Yadav, J.
Renu Maurya and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Crl. M. Application No. - 43295 of 2012
Decided On : 27-05-2014
For the Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shukla
For the Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
The fundamental right of liberty must be respected, and individuals, especially minors, cannot be confined in protective homes against their wishes without proper legal basis and jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashment of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 98 - Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 - Smt. Renu Maurya - Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. - 98 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 98 of the Code, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 98 of the Code, the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007, and their interpretation in the context of the case. The court highlighted the legal provisions related to the restoration of abducted females and the procedure for ascertaining the age of a juvenile. The court emphasized the fundamental right of liberty and the illegality of confining a woman against her wishes, especially when she is not a juvenile or a victim of an offense. The court also referenced previous judgments to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and their application in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The father of the applicant no. 1 lodged an F.I.R. alleging that his minor daughter had left home and suspected enticement by the applicant no. 2. The applicant no. 1 appeared before the C.J.M., stating that she had married the applicant no. 2 out of love and wanted to reside with him. The C.J.M. ordered her to be lodged in a protective home based on her age and the charges against the applicant no. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the C.J.M.'s order to be illegal and unconstitutional, emphasizing the fundamental right of liberty and the lack of jurisdiction to confine the applicant no. 1 in a protective home against her wishes. The court also directed the C.J.M. to undergo training and awarded compensation to the applicant no. 1 for wrongful confinement.
Issues: The legality of confining a woman against her wishes, the interpretation of Section 98 of the Code, the application of the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007, and the jurisdiction of the C.J.M. to order the confinement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even a minor cannot be kept in a protective home against her will, especially when she is not a victim of an offense. The court emphasized the importance of respecting personal liberties and highlighted the lack of jurisdiction to issue such orders.
Final Decision: The court quashed the C.J.M.'s order and directed the immediate release of the applicant no. 1 from the protective home. It also awarded compensation to the applicant no. 1 for wrongful confinement.
Het Singh Yadav,J.
The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for invocation of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the C.J.M., Sonbhadra in Misc. Case No. 71 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Pannuganj, District -Sonbhadra whereby the applicant no. 1 was directed to be lodged in Rajkiya Sanrakshan Griha (Mahila), Varanasi.
2. The facts of the case in brief necessary for the disposal of the controversy involved herein are that on 11.4.2012, the father of the applicant no. 1 lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that his minor daughter Renu Keshri, aged about 15 years, had left the house on 10.4.2012 for appearing in Intermediate Board Examination, but she did not return. He suspected that the applicant no. 2 might have enticed away his daughter.
3. It would appear that the applicants preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5571 of 2012 in the this Court in which the Division Bench on 17.8.2012 passed the following order: -
".....5. Petitioners may appear before the CJM, Sonebhadra by 7th September, 2012. The CJM will record the statement of petitioner no. 1 in Crl. Misc. WP No. 5571 of 2012 and ascertain her age by medical examination or by other evidence. Thereafter appropriate order may be passed under section 98 of the CrPC.
6. Till the CJM passes appropriate order regarding petitioner no. 1 under section 98 of the CrPC, the other petitioner will not be arrested in the aforesaid crime number. Considering the order passed under section 98, CrPC, it will be open for the CJM to pass appropriate order for other petitioners or for the investigating officer to proceed in the matter.
7. Needless to add that in case petitioner no. 1 is major and does not support the prosecution story then the other petitioners will not be arrested. It is clarified that in case the petitioners do not appear before the CJM by the date fixed, the order restraining the arrest of the petitioners will be deemed to have been vacated. "
4. In the light of the aforesaid order of the Court, the applicant no. 1 appeared before the C.J.M., Sonbhadra. Her statement was recorded by the C.J.M. which substantially mentioned that she was about 19 years; and that her date of birth was 23.9.1993. The applicant no. 1 also produced School Living Certificate said to have been issued by the Headmaster of the primary school duly verified by the District Basic Education Officer, Sonbhadra in which 23.9.1993 is mentioned as her date of birth. Her statement further reads that she had walked out of her parents' house out of her own volition, met the applicant no. 2 and thereafter, they tied up the nuptial knots. Subsequently, the marriage was duly registered in the office of the Registrar, under the Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with law. Her statement further reads that she was not enticed away by the applicant no. 2 but she being in love with the applicant no. 2, both performed marriage out of love and affection and now she wanted to reside with the applicant no. 2 as his wife. It is also stated that the case of kidnapping has been falsely foisted on applicant no. 2 by her parents.
5. It would appear that to begin with, the learned C.J.M., Sonbhadra sent the applicant no. 1 for being medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Sonbhadra in order to ascertain her age as directed by this Court mentioned above. The Chief Medical Officer after obtaining report of the Radiologist, who conducted epiphyses test of her knee, elbow and writ joints, opined that the age of the applicant no. 1 was about 18 years. Learned C.J.M., in the impugned order observed that in her High School Marks Sheet, her date of birth is mentioned as 23.9.1996 and thereafter proceeded to converge to the conclusion that the school transfer certificate submitted by the applicant no. 1 was forged and fictit
