Ruby Sharma and Others vs State of U.P.and Others

Dilip Gupta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned A.G.A. appears for the State respondents.

Petitioner no.1Smt. Ruby Sharma claims to be major, aged 20 years. She has annexed a certificate and a marksheet of High School Examination 2004 in proof of her age. The petitioners have also annexed the certificate in proof of their marriage issued by Arya Samaj Mandir Etah, Bipass Road Kwarsi, Aligarh. It is alleged that Smt. Ruby Sharma and Surendra Singhpetitioner nos.1 & 2 have married with their consent.

Ram Prakash Sharmarespondent no.4the father of the girl has lodged a First Information Report, alleging that petitioner no. 1 is minor, and that she has been kidnapped by the petitioner nos.2 and 3.

The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not ordinarily take evidence and decide any issues of facts. The allegation that petitioner No. 1 is major and that she has entered into valid marriage with petitioner no. 2 with her free will and consent is subject to the investigation to be made by the police.

In the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with directions that the petitioners'' arrest in Case Crime No. 291 of 2011 under Section 363, 366, IPC P.S. Jawa, District Aligarh, shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks from today. In the meantime, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 will be at liberty to appear before the concerned Magistrate to record their statements. The Magistrate will satisfy himself with the age of the petitioners, and the validity of their marriage before passing any orders and thereafter he shall inform the investigating officer to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.