- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionists challenging the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in case Crime No. 491 of 2013, State vs. Ansar Ahmad and another, under sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Bahedi, District Bareilly, whereby the prosecutrix (revisionist no. 1) was sent to Nari Niketan.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the prosecutrix, who is major, has been detained in Nari Niketan against her will. It has been further argued that in her both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the revisionist/prosecutrix has categorically stated that she, with her own free will, has performed marriage with revisionist no. 2 Ansar Ahmad and she intends to live with him in her matrimonial home.It is next contended that the radiological age of the girl has been found to be 19 years but the learned Magistrate, wrongly relying on the School Leaving Certificate and admission register of prosecutrix, has held her to be a minor, without paying any attention to the material discrepancies in the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of her minority. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate has ignored the Medical Examination Report of the prosecutrix in illegal and arbitrary manner so it has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the revision be allowed.
(3.) Learned AGA has opposed the above submissions by arguing that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality while holding the prosecutrix as minor on the basis of her School Leaving Certificates and the order impugned does not require any interference by this Court.;