- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by petitioner Munna Khan @ Munir Khan alleging that respondent No.4 has unlawfully detained his daughter and that the age of his daughter is 17 years and she is minor. It has been alleged that his daughter has been detained unlawfully. Transfer Certificate has been annexed as Annexure 1 wherein the date of birth has been recorded as 13.06.1995. This certificate has been issued on 19.9.2011.
(2.) A report to this effect was lodged by the petitioner but it is alleged that nothing was done by the police and he has filed this habeas corpus petition before this court on 30.3.2012. Notices were ordered to be issued by the court, after the defects were removed, on 27.4.2012. Directions were also given to the respondents to produce the detenu before this court. On 2.7.2012, the detenu was produced in court by SHO Shri Bala Ram, P.S. Neem-ka-Thana who stated that daughter of the petitioner has been produced in court by mother of the respondent NO.4, voluntarily on 2.7.2012. Since the petitioner was not present, the detenu was remanded to the care of the Superintendent, Children Home, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur with the direction to produce her before this court. Today, the detenu has been produced in court. The petitioner along with his family members is present. The detenu is present. The mother of the respondent NO.4 is also present. The learned counsel for State took us through the reply and also produced before us the copies of the judgment of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar) passed in Sessions Case No. 5/2011 based upon FIR No.759/2010, Police Station Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar), State v/s Umesh Singh for offence u/s 363, 366 and 376, IPC. It was brought to our notice that the said proceedings were initiated against respondent No.4 on account of FIR mentioned above in respect of incident which is said to have occurred on 20.11.2010 wherein in respect of present detenu, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against respondent No.4 and a case for offence u/s 363 and 376, IPC was registered. After trial, the accused (respondent No.4) was acquitted by the learned trial court. More importantly, the detenu had not supported the prosecution case as stated in para no.10 of the said judgment dated 18.1.2012 and this ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the accused respondent No.4 herein. In the very same judgment, the learned trial court had specifically recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in that case, who is the detenu in the present case, is less than 18 years. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned trial court had also taken into account the medical evidence in the form of the report of the Medical Officer Ex.P 19. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we find that prima facie the age of the detenu appears to be 18 years or more at present and so far as the present case is concerned and he can be treated as a major capable of taking her own decision. We enquired from the detenu as to whether she was in unlawful detention and she has denied the fact that she is in unlawful detention. She has clearly stated that she has accompanied the respondent No.4 of her own free will and they are living together voluntarily at the house of Smt. Rajwati W/o Shri Bharat Singh, R/o Ward No.8, Purana Bajar, Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar, police Station Neem-ka-Thana who is the mother of the respondent No.4. Smt. Rajwati has stated that her family has already accepted the detenu as their daughter-in-law and they have no objection to the aforesaid even though it may be a intercaste marriage entered into by their son the respondent No.4 and the detenu. The aforesaid statement given by the detenu Kumari Pinki was made in the presence of petitioner Munna Khan @ Munir Khan and she has categorically stated in court that she does not wish to accompany her father and would like to accompany the respondent No.4 and live in the family of the respondent NO.4 with whom she has entered into marriage. In that view of the matter, we would disposed of this petition with the observations that it cannot be said that the detention of the detenu Kumar Pinki is in any manner of unlawful. The fact that she appears to be more than 18 years of age, she has the right to determine her choice as to where she wishes to stay and with whom and since she does not wish to stay with the father i.e. the petitioner and would like to remain in the company of the respondent No.4 as she has already entered into marriage with him and which has been accepted by the family members of the respondent No.4 as stated by Smt. Rajwati who is present in the court. She cannot be compelled to accompany the petitioner. Accordingly she is ordered to be set free to accompany the respondent No.4. While disposing of the petition we would direct that the SHO, P.S. Neem-ka- Thana would ensure the safe return of the detenu in the care of the respondent No.4 and his family members and shall also ensure that no harm is caused either to the detenu or the respondent No.4 either from the side of the petitioner and his community or from the side of the respondent No.4 or his family members and his community on account of the intercaste marriage entered into by the parties.
(3.) THE habeas corpus petition accordingly stands disposed of.;