- (1.) Smt. Vinita had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3559 of 2012 in which we had issued the following direction on 29.3.2012: "There is no authentic evidence to satisfy us as to the claim of the victim Smt. Vinita that she was 18 years or above that age on the date of occurrence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1, Smt. Vinita is desirous of appearing before the police and getting her age determined by a Medical Board within 15 days. We direct her to appear within 15 days from today before the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.94 of 2012 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. registered by Wazirganj Police Station of District Budaun. The Investigating Officer of the case shall immediately request the Magistrate to record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at the same time, request the Chief Medical Officer of Budaun to constitute a Board of Doctors for determining the age of petitioner no. 1-Smt. Vinita. The Investigating Officer shall forward a copy of the statement of the victim to this Court on or before 1st of May, 2012. The Chief Medical Officer shall also forward a copy of the medical report regarding the determination of age of Smt. Vinita-petitioner no. 1 to this Court so as to reaching the Court prior to 01.05.2012. On which date this petition shall be listed before an appropriate Bench. So long as the above proceedings are carried out, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Vinita shall not be arrested by the police in connection with the aforesaid case and shall also not be allowed to meet any person so as to get influenced in her decision making. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Magistrate concerned."
(2.) It appears that from the facts admitted which are asserted by the petitioner herself, she did not comply with the orders of the Court passed in the above noted Criminal Misc. Writ Petition on 29.3.2012 and she roamed around with accused Manoj. Because the direction was also equally compelling for the police officers so they arrested accused Manoj and the present petitioner and thereafter appear to have produced accused Manoj and the present petitioner Vinita before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Budaun. Before her production, the police got petitioner examined by doctor and that report appears at page Nos. 29 to 32 as also at page 32. The report indicates that the lady was carrying a? foetus in her womb of about six weeks and further that she was aged about 18 years. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded by the learned Judicial? Magistrate, 1st Class,? Budaun, gist of which appears at page Nos. 34 and 35, the lady stated that she had herself, out of her own free will, had went out of her parents' house to go with accused Maonj. She was never enticed or taken away by accused Manoj and further that they loved each other, as such they? got wedded to each other. The lady stated that after getting married to Manoj, she consummated the marriage.
(3.) The learned A.C.J.M. II, Budaun finding that the father was vying with the petitioner to have her custody, whereas the petitioner was unwilling to go with him on the ground that her life was in danger, thought it fit that the lady should be put into Nari Neketan, Bareilly by his order dated 21.4.2012. Thus, the lady petitioner is confined there and urges that the order of the learned A.C.J.M. II, Budaun dated 21.4.2012 was not only illegal but unreasonable and unconstitutional, inasmuch as there was no reason for the Court below to authorize her detention in Nari Niketan, Bareilly inasmuch as she was aged about 19 years as per her own statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and? as such, was grown up enough to take her own decision.;