(Passed on this 11^th Day of February, 2022)

Anand Pathak, J.

1.

Instant writ appeal has been preferred by the

appellant/petitioner under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Prades Uchch

Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005

taking exception to order dated 29/1/2020 passed by learned writ

Court in W.P.No. 1714/2020; whereby, petition (habeas corpus

petition) preferred by appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

2.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant as

petitioner preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India vide W.P.NO. 24982/2019 in the nature of

Habeas Corpus with the allegations that corpus-Tamanna(sister of

petitioner), a minor girl aged 16 years being kidnapped by

respondents No. 5 to 8. Later on, corpus was produced by police

3 W.A.No. 120/2021

and she expressed her willingness to live with her parents and

accordingly her statement was recorded before the Principal

Registrar of this Court and she was released to live at her

maternal home. Police registered a case vide Crime No. 381/2019

for offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of POCSO

Act and charge-sheet was filed against accused persons and trial

was pending at the relevant point of time.

3.

It is further alleged that on 1/12/2019, respondent No. 5

again kidnapped the corpus, therefore, fresh complaint was

lodged. Since police refused to take any action on the said

complaint, therefore, complaints were made to higher Police

Authorities and thereafter, instant writ petition (Habeas Corpus)

was filed.

4.

Meanwhile, Police produced the corpus again before the

Court and she made a statement that she is Major and entered into

wedlock with respondent No. 5-Chhotu S/o Harnarayan on her

own volition and she expressed her desire to live with her

husband at her matrimonial house. Learned writ Court directed

her to write down her statement for which she expressed her

inability to write down. Accordingly, with the direction of this

Court, SHO, Police Station Dehat, District Bhind wrote the

statement of corpus, which was signed by corpus as well as

Constable Amrita, who brought her to the Court.

5.

Main contention of petitioner was the age of corpus as

according to him, date of birth of corpus is 2/5/2003, therefore,

according to him, she was minor when she was allegedly

4 W.A.No. 120/2021

abducted. It was his submission that corpus studied in Govt.

Shastri Primary School, Mau, District Bhind in which her date of

birth is referred as 2/5/2003. However, corpus opposed the said

contention on the basis of fact that she never studied in said

school; in fact, she studied in Madarsa (enjlk ) and her parents

have created forged mark-sheet of govt. Shastri Primary School,

Mau, District Bhind for age purpose..

6.

Father of petitioner Aaseen Khan lodged the FIR on

11/6/2019 when she eloped for the first time and same was

registered vide crime No. 381/2019 in which he referred the age

of his daughter as 17 years 11 months. Said fact appeared to be

correct as stated before the writ Court because in the school

leaving certificate as well as mark-sheet of Class VII, certificate

of Saraswati Bal Vidhya Mandir dated 16/6/2012 (as provided

later by Madarsa Islamiya School, Mau) refers the date of birth of

corpus as 6/7/2001 and therefore, father rightly referred the age of

corpus as 17 years 11 months and on 1/12/2019, she was major.

7.

Learned writ Court came to the conclusion that earlier,

Father of corpus lodged FIR and filed writ petition, now Brother

of corpus has filed the writ petition while showing date of birth

other than as mentioned in previous FIR (in which father of

appellant/petitioner referred the age of his daughter as 17 years 11

months), resultantly, learned writ Court found the corpus to be

Major as her correct date of birth was found to be 6/7/2001 and

accordingly dismissed