Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner no.1 corpus is major aged about 19 years and petitioner no.2 after giving Talaq to his first wife about one year ago has made marriage with petitioner no. 1 on 30.10.2016,; that the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25090 of 2016 before this Court for quashing the F.I.R. of Case Crime No.1182 of 2016, lodged by respondent no.4 against the petitioner no.2, his mother and brother at Case Crime No. 1182 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that the above writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.12.2016 stating that : However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the kidnapped girl shall be produced before the court concerned, it is directed that, in case the alleged kidnapped girl Km. Sheelam @ Rehana appears/produced before the court of learned C.J.M. concerned within 20 days from today and moves an application for her medical examination, recording her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate concerned shall fix a date for the same purpose, on that date the first informant & officer in charge of the police station concerned shall be summoned, she shall be produced before C.M.O. concerned by the concerned police officer for her medical examination, thereafter she shall be produced before CJM concerned for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the same shall be recorded on the application filed by the I.O./Officer in charge of the police station concerned, till then no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners, in default of it, it shall be open to the police authority concerned to arrest the petitioners, if she is found major and does not support the FIR 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 petitioners. In case the petitioners approach the S.S.P. concerned to provide the security for the above mentioned purpose, the same shall be provided to them.
(3.) That in furtherance of order of Division Bench of this Court the corpus was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, who has, vide impugned order dated 3.1.2017 at Annexure-4 handed over the custody of corpus, to her father-respondent no.4 holding her to be a girl between 13-14 years old; that C.J.M, Siddharth Nagar has acted wrongly and illegally in handing over the custody of corpus to her father by relying on the certificate of her date of birth to be 1.6.2003 and discarding the medical report according to which her age was determined at 18 years; that since the order passed by C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar is absolutely wrong and illegal so the writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the order dated 3.1.2017 passed by C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar delivering custody of corpus to her father is liable be quashed and an order and direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to produce the corpus before the Court and set her at liberty after recording her statement.;