# Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 458
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-01-23
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 50877 of 2014
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gajraj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-43195
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. Section 482-Release of minor
girl-offence u/s 363/366 IPC-rejection
of ground being minor-of age 17 years 6
month 5 days-in view law laid down by
Apex Court in Smt. Parvati Devi and
Kalyani Chaudhary-even a minor can not
be detained in Nari Niketan against her
will-being girl-detention amounts illegal
confinement-order impugned quasheddirection to release forthwith to go
anywhere according to her wish.
Held: Para-8
In the case in hand, the question of the
applicant being a minor is irrelevant as even
a minor cannot be kept in protective home
against her will. The applicant may hardly
be said that she is not a women or girl
which
come
within
a
preview
of
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Act. Thus, it is clear cut case of
illegal confinement of minor against her
wishes violating fundamental right. Hence,
the impugned order dated 26.05.2014
passed by the Special Judge/ Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kasganj is
hereby quashed and it is directed the
Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Mathura to
release the victim Dolly daughter of Gajraj
Sing be set at liberty to go in according to
her own wish.
Case Law discussed:
1992 All Crl. Cases 32; 1978 Criminal Law
Journal 103.

## Text

458
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgments of this Court. The judgment of the
Full Bench in Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs State
of U P4 held that it was not open to the State
Government to exclude students who had
obtained their degree or diploma, inter alia,
in LT/B P Ed/D P Ed/C P Ed from
institutions and universities established by
law situate at places outside the State and
duly recognized by NCTE from applying
either for the Special BTC or BTC course.
The second judgment of the Full Bench in
Bhupendra Nath Tripathi Vs State of U P5
held, inter-alia, that a degree which was
being granted earlier by Universities in
exercise of powers under Section 22 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956
could not be inferior than a degree of B Ed
now awarded from institutions after their
recognition under Section 14 (3) of the
NCTE Act, 1993. The Full Bench held that
the exclusion of candidates (from the field of
eligibility for the Special Basic Training
Course 2007) who have obtained a B Ed
degree prior to the enforcement of the NCTE
Act, 1993 or after the enforcement thereof
during the period when the application of the
institution or university for recognition was
pending consideration, would be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Neither of the
two decisions of the Full Bench have any
relevance to the issue which has been raised
in these proceedings. Plainly, the petitioners
do not meet the requirements contained in
the notification dated 29 July 2011.
14. For these reasons, we hold that
there is no substance in the writ petition.
The petition shall stand, accordingly,
dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
Application u/s 482 No. 50877 of 2014
Gajraj Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Vashistha
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Govt. Advocate.
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Release of minor
girl-offence u/s 363/366 IPC-rejection
of ground being minor-of age 17 years 6
month 5 days-in view law laid down by
Apex Court in Smt. Parvati Devi and
Kalyani Chaudhary-even a minor can not
be detained in Nari Niketan against her
will-being girl-detention amounts illegal
confinement-order impugned quasheddirection to release forthwith to go
anywhere according to her wish.
Held: Para-8
In the case in hand, the question of the
applicant being a minor is irrelevant as even
a minor cannot be kept in protective home
against her will. The applicant may hardly
be said that she is not a women or girl
which
come
within
a
preview
of
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Act. Thus, it is clear cut case of
illegal confinement of minor against her
wishes violating fundamental right. Hence,
the impugned order dated 26.05.2014
passed by the Special Judge/ Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kasganj is
hereby quashed and it is directed the
Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Mathura to
release the victim Dolly daughter of Gajraj
Sing be set at liberty to go in according to
her own wish.
Case Law discussed:
1992 All Crl. Cases 32; 1978 Criminal Law
Journal 103.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1 All]
 Gajraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.
459
1. Heard Sri Ajay Vashistha, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri I.B.
Yadav, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the impugned order dated
26.05.2014 passed by Special Judge/
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Kasganj, in S.T. No. 31 of 2014 (State Vs.
Ajeet and others), under Sections 363,
366 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, P.S.
Sahawar, District Kasganj.
3. The fact as emerges out from the
record is that the first information report
lodged by applicant who is father of the
victim girl on 23.02.2014 which was
registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 2014
under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S.
Sahawar,
District
Kasganj
with
an
allegation that on 23.02.2014 her minor
daughter
whose
date
of
birth
is
18.08.1996, was enticed away by one Ajit
son of Rajvir Singh along with Rajveer
and Virendra son of Deen Dayal. On
20.05.2014 daughter of the applicant was
recovered from the possession of coaccused Ajit and chargesheet has been
submitted in the case against Ajit only
under Section 366 and 363 and 3/ 4
POCSO Act. The applicant thereafter
moved an application before the Special
Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge Court
No.1, Kasganj to release his
minor
daughter and simultaneously as he is her
natural guardian being father and on
20.05.2014 girl be given in his custody.
The
accused
Ajit
also
moved
an
application on 24.05.2014 for the custody
of the victim on the ground that he was
her husband as both of them have married
on 03.03.2014. The accused Ajit as well
as the victim girl filed a writ petition
being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1473
of 2014 which was disposed of by this
Court on on 10.03.2014 with a direction
that
restraining
any
person
from
interfering in their matrimonial life as she
is
major.
The
Court
rejected
the
application of the applicant as well as the
accused Ajit and come to the conclusion
that the girl was minor who was sent to
Nari Niketan and further order that when
she attain majority, the victim girl should
be released. Hence the present petition
has been filed by the applicant for
quashing of the impugned order passed by
the court below.
4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
is father of the victim girl and she is
minor as per the high school certificate
her date of birth is 18.08.1996 and he
being a natural guardian the custody of
the victim girl should be given to him.
5. Learned AGA has tried to justify
the order passed by the trial court
rejecting the application of the applicant
as well as accused has opposed the prayer
for quashing of the order and stated that
said order has been passed by the court
below in accordance with law.
6. Considering the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the report, the claim
of the applicant that her daughter was a
minor girl as per the high school
certificate her date of birth is 18.08.1996
and at the time of incident she was 17
year six months and 5 days. He further
submits that as per the medical report the
girl has also found to be less than 18 years
on the date of incident but she, as per her
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. stated her age is 21 years and
460
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further stated that she had voluntarily
gone with the applicant and on her own
sweet will marriage with accused Ajit and
the said fact was also informed by her
parent that she would marry with Ajit
Singh but her parents were against the
said marriage. In her statement she also
stated that Ajit had not enticed her away
and she has voluntarily accompanied with
Ajit. The court below while deciding the
custody of the victim on the application
filed by the applicant as well as Ajit Singh
had also tried to know wish of the victim
who has stated that she wants to go with her
husband Ajit Singh but finding her to be
minor, it found proper for sending her Nari
Niketan till she attained majority. It is well
settled law that a minor can not be confined
in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In this
regard, the Judgement of this Court in the
case of Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. State of U.P.
and another reported in 1992 All Crl. Cases
32 in which it has been observed by the
Apex Court that the confinement of a victim
in Nari Niketan against her wishes, cannot be
authorised under any provisions of the Code.
There is no such legal provision wherein the
Magistrate has been authorized to issue
directions that a minor female child shall,
against her wishes, be kept in Nari Niketan.
7. In the case of Mrs. Kalyani
Chaudhory Vs State of U.P. and others
reported in 1978 Criminal Law Journal
103, a Division Bench of this Court held
that no person can be kept in protective
home unless she is required to be kept
there
either
in
pursuance
of
the
Suppression
of
Immoral
Traffic
in
Women and Girls Act or under some
other law permitting her detention in such
a Home.
8. In the case in hand, the question
of the applicant being a minor is
irrelevant as even a minor cannot be kept
in protective home against her will. The
applicant may hardly be said that she is
not a women or girl which come within a
preview of Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act. Thus, it
is clear cut case of illegal confinement of
minor
against
her
wishes
violating
fundamental right. Hence, the impugned
order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the
Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.1, Kasganj is hereby quashed
and it is directed the Superintendent of
Nari Niketan, Mathura to release the
victim Dolly daughter of Gajraj Sing be
set at liberty to go in according to her own
wish.
9. The present application stands
disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Writ-A No. -57990 of 2014
Ram Mohini Devi (Smt.)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Srivastava, Sri H.R. Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules,
1961-Rule 3(3), 5(i), Rule 7(c)-claim of
family pension-by second wife with
consent of first wife-in service record her
name already shown as nominee-heldwhen marriage itself void-consent of
first
wife-immaterial-
rejection-heldproper-petition
dismissed.