# Anjali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 167 of 2023
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anjali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50609
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A., Vikas Sharma

HABEAS CORPUS - Minority of detenue -
Determination of age - Conflicting entries
in Aadhar Card, High School Marksheet
and other certificates - Detenue denying
DOB in school certificate - No birth
certificate issued by municipal authority -
Court directing ossification test - Detenue
found major - Married by choice - Not
willing to go with natural guardian
(father) - Held: Where age determination
by documents under Section 94(2)(i) & (ii)
of the Juvenile Justice Act is unreliable,
ossification test under clause (iii) becomes
the only valid basis - Personal liberty of
detenue under Article 21 must be upheld -
Detenue found not to be in illegal custody.

Held:
Where the age of the detenue is disputed and
documents like school certificates and Aadhar
card bear conflicting dates of birth, and where
the detenue herself disputes the school -
recorded DOB, the ossification test becomes the
only reliable method as per Section 94(2)(iii) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. In the present case, the
ossification test established that the detenue is
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
about 18 years old. The detenue has married
the respondent of her own volition and refuses
to accompany her natural guardian. It is not a
case of abduction or illegal detention. Hence,
the petition was dismissed, and the detenue
was set at liberty to go as per her own will.

Petition dismissed.

Case law discussed:

## Text

8 All. Anjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841

"11. While considering the scope of
interference in an appeal or revision against
acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme
Court that if two views of the evidence are
reasonable possible, one supporting the
acquittal and other indicating conviction, the
High Court should not, in such a situation,
reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. In the matter ofState of
Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, observed as under:

"In such an appeal the Appellate
Court does not lightly disturb the findings
of fact recorded by the Court below. If on
the basis of the same evidence, two views
are reasonably possible, and the view
favouring the accused is accepted by the
Court below, that is sufficient for upholding
the order of acquittal. However, if the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
that the findings of the Court below are
wholly unreasonable or perverse and not
based on the evnidence on record, or
suffers from serious illegality including
ignorance or misreading of evidence on
record, the Appellate Court will be justified
in setting aside such an order of acquittal."

25.

Applying
the
principles
summarized by Hon. Supreme Court in the
case
of
Chandrappa
(supra)
and
Dhanapal (supra) on the facts of the
present case, we find that the learned trial
court has taken a reasonable view which
leads to acquittal. The view taken is not
perverse. Therefore, we do not find any
good reason to set aside or disturb the order
of the acquittal passed by the session court.

26. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this government
appeal, which is pending in this court from
last about 40 years.

27. The appeal lacks merit and is,
therefore, dismissed. Records be send back
forthwith.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 167 of 2023

Anjali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Vikas Sharma

HABEAS CORPUS - Minority of detenue -
Determination of age - Conflicting entries
in Aadhar Card, High School Marksheet
and other certificates - Detenue denying
DOB in school certificate - No birth
certificate issued by municipal authority -
Court directing ossification test - Detenue
found major - Married by choice - Not
willing to go with natural guardian
(father) - Held: Where age determination
by documents under Section 94(2)(i) & (ii)
of the Juvenile Justice Act is unreliable,
ossification test under clause (iii) becomes
the only valid basis - Personal liberty of
detenue under Article 21 must be upheld -
Detenue found not to be in illegal custody.

Held:
Where the age of the detenue is disputed and
documents like school certificates and Aadhar
card bear conflicting dates of birth, and where
the detenue herself disputes the school -
recorded DOB, the ossification test becomes the
only reliable method as per Section 94(2)(iii) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. In the present case, the
ossification test established that the detenue is
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
about 18 years old. The detenue has married
the respondent of her own volition and refuses
to accompany her natural guardian. It is not a
case of abduction or illegal detention. Hence,
the petition was dismissed, and the detenue
was set at liberty to go as per her own will.

Petition dismissed.

Case law discussed:

1. Alamelu & anr. Vs St. Represented by
Inspector of Police,

2. (2011) 2 SCC 385

3. Birad Mal Singhvi Vs Anand Purohit,

4. (1988) 3 SCC 24

5. Narbada Devi Gupta Vs Birendra Kumar
Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745

6. Jaya Mala Vs Govt. of J&K, (1982) 2 SCC
538

7. Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs St. of U.P.,(2006) 5
SCC 584

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of HABEAS
CORPUS with the prayer to direct the opposite
parties to produce the petitioner/detenue before
this Court and may be set at liberty under the
care and custody of their father.

2. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Alok Tewari, learned A.G.A. for the State and
the detenue Anjali, who has been produced
by Mr. Ram Vishal Singh Sub-Inspector and
Manisha Sharma Constable before this Court,
as well as perused the record.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent
nos. 4 and 5 are not present although
respondent no.4 Sher Singh @ Sera is
present before this Court, who has been
identified by the detenue.

4. This Court vide order dated
8.8.2023 has passed the following orders:-

"1.In compliance of order dated
24.7.2023, the detenue Anjali has been
produced by S.I. Ram Vishal Singh and lady
Constable Manisha Sharma.

2.On a query being made, the detenue
Anjali has stated that her date of birth is
18.8.2004 and she is presently 20 years old.
She further states that the date of birth
recorded in her High School mark sheet
varies from her date of birth in the Aadhar
Card and no reliance can be placed
thereon. She has further stated that she
does not want to go with her father,
deponent; rather she wants to reside with
respondent No.4 with whom she is married.

Respondent No.4 Sera and the detenue
both have submitted that they have been
brought from Punjab today before this
court. They were living together in Punjab
and earning their livelihood there.

Shera has further submitted that he
along with the detenue is residing with his
uncle at police station Madiyaon and both
of them will reside there for some time.

3.Learned
A.G.A.
submits
that
considering the fact that the detenue
asserts that she is major and she is
disputing the date of birth in High School
mark sheet, it would be appropriate if the
ossification test of the detenue is conducted
by the Chief Medical Officer, Sitapur to
find out the age of the detenue.

Learned A.G.A. has further submitted
that the deponent has given an application
dated 9.5.2023 before the concerned police
station in the form of Tahrir where he
himself has shown the date of birth of the
detenue to be 20 years.
8 All. Anjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner
on being confronted with the submission
advanced by learned A.G.A. has submitted
that the deponent is illiterate and he is not
even aware as to what has been written in
the application exactly.

On a query being put to the learned
counsel for deponent as to on what basis
the date of birth of the detenue in the High
School mark sheet has been recorded as
8.6.2006 and how it varies from the date of
birth recorded in the Aadhar Card as stated
by the detenue, he submits that he has no
proof and in this context, he has not taken
any instruction by his client.

5.The deponent is directed to file a
supplementary affidavit bringing on record
the initial school(s) certificates of the
detenue where she has studied.

6.Considering the fact that mere
recording of date of birth of the detenue in
the High School mark sheet cannot be said
to be exclusive proof of age, it would be
appropriate that the ossification test of the
detenue is conducted by the Chief Medical
Officer.

7.It is provided that the police
personnel present in Court shall take the
detenue
before
the
Child
Welfare
Committee,
Sitapur
today
where
the
detenue will be kept, till further orders of
the court. They shall take the detenue
tomorrow before the Chief Medical Officer,
Sitapur who shall conduct ossification test
of the detenue within 24 hours and submit
the report to the concerned police officer.

8.Learned A.G.A. shall file counter
affidavit within three days.

9.List on 11.8.2023. On that date, the
detenue shall again be produced."

5. Today, learned A.G.A. has
produced
the
original
copy
of
the
ossification test conducted by the Medical
Board,
Sitapur
and
according
to
radiological
and
general
physical
appearance the age of the detenue has been
assessed to be about 18 years by the
Medical Board and certificate to that extent
has been issued by the office of Chief
Medical Officer, Sitapur. The photo-copy
of the certificate provided by learned
A.G.A. is taken on record.

6. In paragaraph 2 of the order dated
8.8.2023 (quoted above) the statement of
the detenue Anjali was recorded by this
Court. Today again, upon query being
made, the detenue Anjali has stated that she
has married to Sher Singh @ Sera and in
support of her statement/contention she has
produced the marriage certificate issued by
Arya
Samaj
Mandir
Lucknow
with
registration no.1867, which shows that the
detenue Anjali has married with Sher Singh
on 15.6.2023. The photocopy of the
marriage certificate is taken on record. She
further stated that the marriage took place
three months back in Lucknow. After the
marriage she was residing with Sera in
State of Punjab. She wants to live with her
husband Sher Singh @ Sera. A copy of the
Aadhar card of Anjali has been provided by
Sera, who is present in the court. A perusal
of the same shows that the date of birth of
the detenue is 1.1.2004 which corroborates
the statement given by the detenue on the
last date that her date of birth in Aadhar
card varies from her date of birth recorded
in the High School mark sheet.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the actual date of birth
of the detenue is 8.6.2007 and the date of
birth written in the High School mark-sheet
is incorrect.

8. In support of his contention, he has
given the Scholar's Register and Transfer
Certificate form dated 8.12.2022 of Class
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10th issued by Arunodaya Inter College,
Sitapur and also the mark-sheet of class
8th, which also shows date of birth of the
detenue as 8.6.2007 and the High School
mark-sheet which again shows date of birth
as 8.6.2006.

9. A perusal of the educational
certificates produced on behalf of the
petitioner relating to the age of the detenue
it is clear that there is conflict relating to
exact date of birth.

10. Learned counsel for the deponent,
while giving statement before this court on
the last date, has not been able to inform as
to on what basis date of birth of the detenue
was recorded in the various school
certificates. It is also in variance with the
Aadhar card.

11. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(in short hereinafter referred to as Act)
provides the manner and mode of the
presumption and determination of age of a
juvenile. Section 94 of the Act is extracted
below:-

"Presumption and determination of
age.

(1) Where, it is obvious to the
Committee or the Board, based on the
appearance of the person brought before it
under any of the provisions of this Act (other
than for the purpose of giving evidence) that
the said person is a child, the Committee or
the Board shall record such observation
stating the age of the child as nearly as may
be and proceed with the inquiry under section
14 or section 36, as the case may be, without
waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Committee or
the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age determination,
by seeking evidence by obtaining?

(i) the date of birth certificate from the
school, or the matriculation or equivalent
certificate from the concerned examination
Board, if available; and in the absence
thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and
(ii) above, age shall be determined by an
ossification test or any other latest medical
age determination test conducted on the
orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test
conducted on the order of the Committee or
the Board shall be completed within fifteen
days from the date of such order.

(3)
The
age
recorded
by
the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person."

12. Thus, as per provisions of Section
94(2) of the Act, the Child Welfare
Committee or the Board in case of
reasonable grounds for doubt as to whether
the person brought before it, is a child or
not, the Committee or the Board, as the
case may be, shall undertake the process of
age determination by seeking evidence by
obtaining,
firstly,
the
date
of
birth
certificate from school, or matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence
thereof;
secondly,
the
birth
certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat; and
thirdly, in absence of educational certificate
or birth certificate as aforementioned, the
8 All. Anjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
age shall be determined by an ossification
test or any other latest medical age
determination test conducted on the orders
of the Committee or the Board.

13. So far as the first contingency
under
Section
94
(2)(i)
i.e.
the
matriculation or equivalent certificate or
date of birth certificates from the school are
concerned, the High School mark-sheet as
well as intermediate mark-sheet and the
other certificates submitted on behalf of the
petitioner and the statement of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the date of
birth written in the high school mark-sheet
is incorrect and the actual date of birth
becomes doubtful.

14. Admittedly, there are conflicting
date of births in the educational certificates
submitted on behalf of the petitioner which
show the detenue is minor, thus, it will not
be safe to rely on the date of birth of the
detenue mentioned in the high school
certificate given by the deponent coupled
with the fact that the deponent (father)
while giving application before the police
in the form of tahrir dated 9.5.2023 has
mentioned that the detenue is 20 years old,
which has not been disputed by the
deponent. The statement given by learned
A.G.A. on 8.8.2023 is extracted below:-

"Learned A.G.A. has further submitted
that the deponent has given an application
dated 9.5.2023 before the concerned police
station in the form of Tahrir where he
himself has shown the date of birth of the
detenue to be 20 years."

15. It is relevant to note that in this
case the detenue herself has disputed the
date of birth mentioned in the matriculation
certificate and according to her statement
given before this court her exact date of
birth is 8.8.2004, thus, in backdrop of this
inconsistency regarding the exact date of
birth of the detenue and in absence of any
other certificate/documents as mentioned
under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
this court has no other option but to rely on
the ossification test report, which has
already been done in this case and
according to which the detenue is major
and 18 years of age.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State
represented
by
Inspector
of
Police
reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases
385, the following has been held in
Paragraphs 39, 40 and 42 to 49 (relevant
portion):

"39. We will first take up the issue with
regard to the age of the girl. The High
Court has based its conclusion on the
transfer
certificate,
Ext.P16
and
the
certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran,
Radiologist, Ext.P4 and Ext.P5.

40.
Undoubtedly,
the
transfer
certificate, Ext.P16 indicates that the girl?s
date of birth was 15th June, 1977.
Therefore, even according to the aforesaid
certificate, she would be above 16 years of
age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the
date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July,
1993. The transfer certificate has been
issued by a Government School and has
been duly signed by the Headmaster.
Therefore, it would be admissible in
evidence under Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence
Act,
1872.
However,
the
admissibility of such a document would be
of not much evidentiary value to prove the
age of the girl in the absence of the
material on the basis of which the age was
recorded. The date of birth mentioned in
the transfer certificate would have no
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidentiary value unless the person, who
made the entry or who gave the date of
birth is examined.

42.Considering the manner in which
the facts recorded in a document may be
proved, this Court in case of Birad Mal
Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit 1 , observed as
follows: (SCC pp. 618-19, para 14).

"14....The date of birth mentioned in
the scholars? register has no evidentiary
value unless the person who made the entry
or who gave the date of birth is
examined???.Merely
because
the
documents Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were
proved, it does not mean that the contents
of documents were also proved. Mere proof
of the documents Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
would not tantamount to proof of all the
contents or the correctness of date of birth
stated in the documents. Since the truth of
the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi
Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in
issue, mere proof of the documents as
produced by the aforesaid two witnesses
does not furnish evidence of the truth of the
facts or contents of the documents. The
truth or otherwise of the facts in issue,
namely, the date of birth of the two
candidates as mentioned in the documents
could be proved by admissible evidence i.e.
by the evidence of those persons who could
vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.
No evidence of any such kind was produced
by the respondent to prove the truth of the
facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi
Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the
circumstances the dates of birth as
mentioned in the aforesaid documents have
no probative value and the dates of birth as
mentioned therein could not be accepted."

43. The same proposition of law is
reiterated by this Court in Narbada Devi
Gupta Vs. B irendra Kumar Jaiswal where
this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.75,
para 16)

"16...The legal position is not in
dispute that mere production and marking
of a document as exhibit by the court
cannot be held to be a due proof of its
contents. Its execution has to be proved by
admissible evidence, that is, by the
evidence of those persons who can
vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in
issue."

44. In our opinion, the aforesaid
burden of proof has not been discharged by
the prosecution. The father says nothing
about the transfer certificate in his
evidence. The Headmaster has not been
examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the
transfer certificate can not be relied upon
to definitely fix the age of the girl.

45. In fixing the age of the girl as
below 18 years, the High Court relied
solely on the certificate issued by PW8 Dr.
Gunasekaran. However, the High Court
failed to notice that in his evidence before
the Court, PW8, the X-ray Expert had
clearly stated in the cross-examination that
on the basis of the medical evidence,
generally, the age of an individual could be
fixed approximately. He had also stated
that it is likely that the age may vary from
individual to individual. The doctor had
also stated that in view of the possible
variations in age, the certificate mentioned
the possible age between one specific age
to another specific age. On the basis of the
above, it would not be possible to give a
firm opinion that the girl was definitely
below 18 years of age.

46. In addition, the High Court failed
to consider the expert evidence given by
PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar, who had
medically examined the victim. In his crossexamination, he had clearly stated that a
medical examination would only point out
the age approximately with a variation of
two years. He had stated that in this case,
the age of the girl could be from 17 to 19
8 All. Anjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
years. This margin of error in age has been
judicially recognized by this Court in the
case of Jaya Mala Vs. Government of
Jammu & Kashmir. In the aforesaid
judgment, it is observed as follows: (SCC p.
541, para 9)

"9...However, it is notorious and one
can take judicial notice that the margin of
error in age ascertained by radiological
examination is two years on either side."

47.We are of the opinion, in the facts
of this case, the age of the girl could not
have been fixed on the basis of the transfer
certificate. There was no reliable evidence
to vouchsafe the correctness of the date of
birth as recorded in the transfer certificate.
The expert evidence does not rule out the
possibility of the girl being a major. In our
opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove
that the girl was a minor, at the relevant
date.

48.We may further notice that even
with reference to Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act, a public document has to be
tested by applying the same standard in
civil as well as criminal proceedings. In
this context, it would be appropriate to
notice the observations made by this Court
in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs.
State of U.P. held as follows: (SCC p. 595,
para 38)

"38. The age of a person as recorded
in the school register or otherwise may be
used for various purposes, namely, for
obtaining admission; for obtaining an
appointment;
for
contesting
election;
registration of marriage; obtaining a
separate unit under the ceiling laws; and
even for the purpose of litigating before a
civil
forum
e.g.
necessity
of
being
represented in a court of law by a guardian
or where a suit is filed on the ground that
the plaintiff being a minor he was not
appropriately represented therein or any
transaction made on his behalf was void as
he was a minor. A court of law for the
purpose of determining the age of a party
to the lis, having regard to the provisions of
Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to
apply the same standard. No different
standard can be applied in case of an
accused as in a case of abduction or rape,
or similar offence where the victim or the
prosecutrix although might have consented
with the accused, if on the basis of the
entries made in the register maintained by
the school, a judgment of conviction is
recorded, the accused would be deprived of
his constitutional right under Article 21 of
the Constitution, as in that case the
accused may unjustly be convicted."
49.
In
such
circumstances,
we
are
constrained to hold that the High Court
without examining the factual and legal
issues has unnecessarily rushed to the
conclusion that the girl was a minor at the
time of the alleged abduction. There is no
satisfactory evidence to indicate that she
was a minor."

17. On consideration of the aforesaid
judgement it is evident that age of the
person recorded in school register or
certificate issued by the school can be used
for so many purposes such as for obtaining
admission, appointment, contesting the
election, registration of marriage or for any
other purposes. Mere production and
making of a document as exhibit by the
court cannot be held to be a due proof of its
contents, more so in the given facts of this
case when there is apparent inconsistency
in recording the date of birth in the various
educational certificates of the detenue
coupled with fact that the detenue herself is
disputing her date of birth recorded in the
matriculation
certificate
and
also
considering the fact that learned counsel for
the deponent on the last date has submitted
that he could not disclose the source as to
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on what basis of date of birth of the detenue
have
been
recorded
in
her
school
certificates.

18. Thus second option available
under Section 94 (2)(ii) of the Act is the
birth certificate given by Corporation or
Municipal authority or Panchayat i.e. also
absent in this case. No such certificate has
been filed by either of the parties except
Aadhar card of the detenue in which the
date of birth is 1.1.2004, therefore, no
reliance can be placed on the aadhar card
either since both the options i.e. Section
94(2)(i) and 94(2)(ii) of the Act are of no
use in the given peculiar facts and
circumstance of this case, therefore, the
only course available to ascertain the
correct date of birth of the detenue is
ossification test as per Section 94(2)(iii) of
the Act, which was conducted and
according to which the detenue is major.

19. The right of the detenue vested
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India cannot be ignored by the Court. The
detenue is not an accused before this Court.
The right guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India cannot be denied
on hyper-technicalities while saying that
the detenue is few months less than the age
of majority.

20. Considering the fact that in the
radiological examination conducted by the
medical board the detenue is major; the
detenue has refused to go with the company
of natural guardian; she is married and
wants to live with her husband; the
marriage certificate has also been produced
before this Court and it is not the case of
the any party that she has been abducted or
kidnapped, the detenue cannot be ordered
to be kept in Nari Niketan or can be asked
to live against her wishes with her parents.

21. As discussed above, I have no
hesitation in holding that it is not the case
of illegal detention and that the detenue is
major.

22. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that being father of
the detenue it is not his intention to bother
her daughter any further. Only anxiety is
that she should be legally married. Since,
the marriage certificate has been produced
by the detenue before this Court, therefore,
he does not want to press this petition any
further.

23. On due consideration to the statement
given by learned counsel for the petitioner;
so also the statement of the detenue;
ossification test report; and the record
given otherwise; on merit, the petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed. The detenue
is set at liberty to go as per her own wish.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 848
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 571 of 2023

Ramit Lala & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sri Gyan Prakash

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226
-
Code
of
Criminal