# Smt. Joolee & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-07
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 799 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-joolee-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52741
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the detenue is major and is
entitled to be set at liberty and left free to go
wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever
she wants?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94- In
the absence of a proper date of birth
certificate issued by the School or the
Board, where the victim or the detenue
has passed a graduating examination, a
transfer
certificate
or
school
leaving
certificate or an admission register entry
cannot be considered to be a proof of the
victim/detenue's age- The detenue has
clearly stated that she does not want to
go to her parents, but wishes to go and
stay with her husband, -The detenue is
apparently a major and there is absolutely
no justification in detaining her in a
protection home, as done by the Child
Welfare Committee in this case pending
investigating in the crime registered at
11 All. Smt. Joolee & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1271
the instance of the detenue's father-
Petition allowed.

Held- The detenue who is present in Court is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. She is free
to go wherever she likes and stay with
whomsoever she wants, including her husband.
Petition allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector of
Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846.

List of Acts
The
Constitution
of
India,1950;
The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; Illegal detention; Detenue major; Free
to go wherever she likes; Section 94(2) JJ Act.

Case Arising From
Writ of habeas corpus h filed on behalf of Smt.
Joolee wife of Harsh Goswami, daughter of
Madan Giri with a prayer that Smt. Joolee (for
short ' the detenue') liberty

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner:
Jigyasha
Tripathi,
Surendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel
for
Respondents:
Ajay
Kumar
Chaurasia, G.A.

## Text

1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending between the parties much prior to
lodging
of
the
present
FIR
dated
13.10.2019. The said civil suit is still
pending to be decided on merit. The order
on interim application does not amounting
to decide the lis pending between the
parties. The application under section
173(4) of BNSS filed by the revisionists
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 845
of 2025 was rejected on the ground that the
matter in dispute is of civil nature.

24. The opposite party no.2/complainant
has filed the FIR in question dated
13.10.2019 against Shamsher Singh and
made
several
allegations
against
him,
whereas Shamsher Singh already died on
9.3.2019 much prior to lodging of the present
FIR dated 13.10.2019.

25. In view of all the reasons, facts and
circumstances and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court (Urmila Devi) (supra), it is
categorically held that the court proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution as no
one is permitted to disguise the civil dispute
as criminal.

26. Hence, the impugned order dated
6.1.2025, passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur in Case No.
121071 of 2021 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash
Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime
No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, so far as it
relates to the revisionists, is hereby set aside
and the revisionists are discharged. The
impugned
order
against
accused-Sushil
Naroola would be operating and that would
be disposed of by the learned trial court in
accordance with law.

27. The criminal revision stands
allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR , J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 799 of 2025

Smt. Joolee & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the detenue is major and is
entitled to be set at liberty and left free to go
wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever
she wants?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94- In
the absence of a proper date of birth
certificate issued by the School or the
Board, where the victim or the detenue
has passed a graduating examination, a
transfer
certificate
or
school
leaving
certificate or an admission register entry
cannot be considered to be a proof of the
victim/detenue's age- The detenue has
clearly stated that she does not want to
go to her parents, but wishes to go and
stay with her husband, -The detenue is
apparently a major and there is absolutely
no justification in detaining her in a
protection home, as done by the Child
Welfare Committee in this case pending
investigating in the crime registered at
11 All. Smt. Joolee & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1271
the instance of the detenue's father-
Petition allowed.

Held- The detenue who is present in Court is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. She is free
to go wherever she likes and stay with
whomsoever she wants, including her husband.
Petition allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector of
Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846.

List of Acts
The
Constitution
of
India,1950;
The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; Illegal detention; Detenue major; Free
to go wherever she likes; Section 94(2) JJ Act.

Case Arising From
Writ of habeas corpus h filed on behalf of Smt.
Joolee wife of Harsh Goswami, daughter of
Madan Giri with a prayer that Smt. Joolee (for
short ' the detenue') liberty

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner:
Jigyasha
Tripathi,
Surendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel
for
Respondents:
Ajay
Kumar
Chaurasia, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.
&
Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.)

1. A rule nisi was granted in this case
on 03.09.2025. It was followed by a
number of orders. We inquired into the
detenue's date of birth, or so to speak, her
age, in order to determine whether she is
entitled to be set at liberty and left free to
go wherever she likes and stay with
whomsoever she wants.

2. In compliance with the rule, the
only affidavit that has been filed is an
affidavit of compliance filed by the
Investigating Officer of the case in a related
crime. This affidavit, is therefore, treated to
be the return.

3. The detenue has been produced and
we proceed to hear the matter forthwith.

4. This petition for grant of a writ of
habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of
Smt. Joolee wife of Harsh Goswami,
daughter of Madan Giri with a prayer that
Smt. Joolee (for short ' the detenue') be
ordered to be produced by a rule nisi of
ours and set at liberty. This petition has
been filed on behalf of the detenue,
arraying Smt. Joolee as the first petitioner
through Harsh Goswami, who has been
arrayed as the second petitioner.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the
detenue is a major aged about 18 years, her
date of birth, being 16th April, 2007, as
mentioned on her Aadhar Card. It is the
petitioners' case that a First Information
Report (for short 'FIR') was lodged by the
detenue's father on 08.07.2025 alleging
commission of offences punishable under
Sections 137 (2) and 351 (2) of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Police Station
Sikandra, District Agra.

6. The substance of the allegations is
that the detenue was kidnapped on 3rd July,
2025 in order to marry the second
petitioner. The second petitioner was aided
by one Lokesh Gupta in his enterprise of
kidnapping the detenue.

7. On the other hand, it is pleaded by
the petitioners, which includes the detenue
i.e. the first petitioner, that the detenue has
married the second petitioner of her
freewill in the Arya Samaj, Prayagraj on
6th July, 2025. It is also the petitioners'
case that the FIR last mentioned giving rise
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to Case Crime No. 0425 of 2025 was
challenged by them before this Court by
means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.15338 of 2025, where this Court issued
notice and granted stay of arrest to the
petitioners.

8. In the affidavit of compliance,
which is, for all effective purposes, treated
as a return in this case, it is the respondents'
case that detenue is a minor, whose date of
birth is 25th November, 2010, which makes
her fifteen years of age. The return, that has
been filed, annexes as Annexure-1 a
handwritten certificate dated 16.07.2025
issued by the Principal of the Upper
Primary
School
(Composite
School),
Kailash, Bichpuri Agra, certifying that the
detenue's date of birth, according school
records, is 25th November, 2010. There is
then annexed a photostat copy of the school
leaving certificate dated 07.07.2025, which
indicates the detenue's date of birth to be
25th Novermber, 2010. A photostat copy of
the admission register from the Upper
Primary
School
(Composite
School),
Kailash, Bichpuri Agra too has been
annexed to the return, where also, the
detenue's date of birth indicated is 25th
November, 2010.

9. We were not much convinced with
the school records, which were produced
before us and therefore, summoned the
school leaving certificate book in original
as well as the admission register. We also
required
Smt.
Avnish
Malik,
the
Headmistress of the School to be present in
person in order to explain the records that
have material bearing on the point. Smt.
Avnish Malik, the Headmistress of the
School
i.e.
Upper
Primary
School
(Composite School), Kailash, Bichpuri
Agra in compliance with the orders, has
appeared today and produced the original
records. It includes the admission register
as well as the school leaving certificate
book. We have pursued these records. No
doubt, in these records, the detenue's date
of birth recorded is 25.11.2010. But, when
we inquired of the Headmistress as to the
basis on which this date of birth is
recorded, she told us candidly that the date
of birth is not recorded on the basis of any
kind of birth certificate issued by a
Municipal corporation or the hospital
where the child was born. It is recorded on
the basis of information furnished by the
parents or the guardian, who brings the
child
along
for
admission.
Innately,
therefore, the date of birth recorded in the
school records is not a very dependable
index of what the date of birth of the
detenue is, in this case.

10. We, therefore, find these records to
be undependable, so far as the detenue's
date of birth is concerned. We reject the
same.

11. The date of birth of a victim in an
offence under the POCSO Act is to be
determined in the manner provided under
Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2015"). Section 94 (2) of the Act of 2015
reads:-

94.
Presumption
and
determination of 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
11 All. Smt. Joolee & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1273
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.

12. A reading of sub-Section (2) of
Section 94 of the Act of 2015 would show
that there is a preference about evidence as
to age carried in various clauses of subSection (2) of Section 94. The first
preference is to be given to the date of birth
certificate
from
the
school
or
the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from
the Board concerned. It is in the absence of
this class of evidence about the date of
birth that a birth certificate given by a
corporation of a municipal authority or a
panchayat is relevant to determine a
victim's age. If the second class of
documents/evidence is not available, the
age has to be determined by a medical age
determination test done under orders of the
Child Welfare Committee or the Board. For
the
purpose
of
doing
a
medical
determination of age, an ossification test or
any other latest medical age determination
test has to be followed.

13. Now, in this case, what we find is
that the date of birth recorded, in whatever
kind of records from the school, have been
produced before us, is not at all a
dependable
document
regarding
the
detenue's age. The reason is that it is
recorded on the basis of word of mouth that
fell from the guardian or the detenue's
parents, when she was admitted to Class II
in the School. It is not backed by any
documentary evidence such as a birth
certificate from the hospital or a birth
certificate
from
the
corporation
or
municipality. There is, decidedly, no
evidence covered by Clause (ii) of Sub
Section (2) of Section 94 of the Act, 2015
forthcoming in this case, about which there
is no cavil. This leaves the Court with no
option but to ascertain the detenue's age, by
falling back on a medical determination of
age done for the prosecutrix.

14. A supplementary affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner, annexing
therewith copy of opinion of the Medical
Board,
comprising
four
doctors
and
countersigned
by
the
Chief
Medical
Officer, Agra. The doctors, who have
evaluated the detenue for her age, included
a Radiolagist, an Orthopedic Surgeon, a
Deputy Chief Medical Officer and a Dental
Surgeon. They have estimated the detenue
on the basis of an ossification test to be
aged about 19 years. With the usual
variation of the age that is to be inferred in
the case of medical opinion, there could be
a variation of two years on either side.
Since the variation is to be taken on that
side, which exculpates, the age would
firmly place the petitioner on the right side
of the majority.

15. There is another aspect of the
matter which needs to be noticed. So far as
the determination of age under Section 94
(2) of the Act of 2015 is concerned, the
date of birth certificate envisaged under
Section 94 (2) (i) of the Act of 2015 is not
just a transfer certificate or school leaving
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificate or the admission register. These
documents do not qualify as the 'date of
birth certificate' from the school or
matriculation or equivalent certificate. In
the absence of a proper date of birth
certificate issued by the School or the
Board, where the victim or the detenue has
passed a graduating examination, a transfer
certificate or school leaving certificate or
an admission register entry cannot be
considered
to
be
a
proof
of
the
victim/detenue's age.

16. In the view that we take, we are
supported by the authority of the Supreme
Court in P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By
Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 846. In P. Yuvaprakash (supra), it has
been held :

"14. Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ
Act clearly indicates that the date of birth
certificate from the school or matriculation
or equivalent certificate by the concerned
examination board has to be firstly
preferred in the absence of which the birth
certificate issued by the Corporation or
Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is
only thereafter in the absence of these such
documents the age is to be determined
through "an ossification test" or "any
other latest medical age determination
test" conducted on the orders of the
concerned authority, i.e. Committee or
Board or Court. In the present case,
concededly, only a transfer certificate and
not the date of birth certificate or
matriculation or equivalent certificate was
considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer
certificate showed the date of birth of the
victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the
transfer certificate was produced not by the
prosecution but instead by the court
summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden
is always upon the prosecution to establish
what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution
could not have been fallen back upon a
document which it had never relied upon.
Furthermore,
DW-3,
the
concerned
Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had
stated on oath that the records for the year
1997 in respect to the births and deaths
were missing. Since it did not answer to the
description of any class of documents
mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a
mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not
have been relied upon to hold that M was
below 18 years at the time of commission of
the offence.

18. Reverting to the facts of this
case, the headmaster of M's School, CW-1,
was summoned by the court and produced
a Transfer Certificate (Ex.C-1). This
witness produced a Transfer Certificate
Register containing M's name. He deposed
that she had studied in the school for one
year, i.e., 2009-2010 and that the date of
birth was based on the basis of the record
sheet given by the school where she studied
in
the
7th
standard.
DW-2
TMT
Poongothoi,
Headmaster
of
Chinnasoalipalayam Panchayat School,
answered the summons served by the court
and deposed that 'M' had joined her school
with effect from 03.04.2002 and that her
date of birth was recorded as 11.07.1997.
She admitted that though the date of birth
was based on the birth certificate, it would
normally be recorded on the basis of
horoscope. She conceded to no knowledge
about the basis on which the document
pertaining to the date of birth was
recorded. It is stated earlier on the same
issue, i.e., the date of birth, Thiru
Prakasam, DW-3 stated that the birth
register pertaining to the year 1997 was
not available in the record room of his
office.

19. It is clear from the above
narrative that none of the documents
11 All. Smt. Joolee & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1275
produced during the trial answered the
description of "the date of birth certificate
from the school" or "the matriculation or
equivalent certificate" from the concerned
examination board or certificate by a
corporation, municipal authority or a
Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was
incumbent for the prosecution to prove
through
acceptable
medical
tests/examination that the victim's age was
below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of
the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief
Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the
General Hospital at Vellore, produced the
X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of
the examination of M, a certificate was
issued stating ?that the age of the said girl
would be more than 18 years and less than
20 years;. In the cross-examination, she
admitted that M's age could be taken as 19
years. However, the High Court rejected
this evidence, saying that ?when the precise
date of birth is available from out of the
school records, the approximate age
estimated by the medical expert cannot be
the determining factor?. This finding is, in
this court's considered view, incorrect and
erroneous. As held earlier, the documents
produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and
extracts of the admission register, are not
what Section 94(2)(i) mandates; nor are
they in accord with Section 94(2)(ii)
because DW-1 clearly deposed that there
were no records relating to the birth of the
victim, M. In these circumstances, the only
piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94
of the JJ Act was the medical ossification
test, based on several X-Rays of the victim,
and on the basis of which PW-9 made her
statement.
She
explained
the
details
regarding examination of the victim's
bones, stage of their development and
opined that she was between 18-20 years;
in cross-examination she said that the age
might be 19 years. Given all these
circumstances, this court is of the opinion
that the result of the ossification or bone
test was the most authentic evidence,
corroborated by the examining doctor, PW9.

17. In the totality of circumstances, we
find this is a case where we cannot rely on
sundry school records that have been
produced before us and would have to
accept the medical opinion regarding the
detenue's age expressed by the Medical
Board under the CMO's Certification at
Agra vide his certificate date 21.08.2025.
This certificate, incidentally, has been
annexed to the return filed on behalf of the
Investigating Officer as well. There is no
cavil about its authenticity.

18. In the circumstances, we hold that
the detenue is a major aged 18 years or
more.

19. The detenue is before us, and we
proceed to ascertain her wish about the
matter where she wants to go or stay.
Accordingly, we record her statement as
follows :
statement as follows:

प्रश्ि आपिा िाम?

उत्तर - जूली

प्रश्ि - आपिे वपताजी िा
िाम?

उत्तर - मदि गगरी

प्रश्ि - आपिी आयु?

उत्तर 18 ाल 6 महीिा

प्रश्ि - आप िहा े आयी है?

उत्तर - बासलिा बाल गृह े
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

प्रश्ि- आप घर जािा चाहती है
अपिे वपताजी िे पा ?

उत्तर - िहीिं

प्रश्ि- आप िहााँ जािा चाहती
है?

उत्तर - हस्बैंि िे ाथ

प्रश्ि - आपिे हस्बैंि िा क्या
िाम है?

उत्तर - हर्ा गोस्वामी

20. The detenue has clearly stated that
she does not want to go to her parents, but
wishes to go and stay with her husband,
Harsh
Goshwami.
The
detenue
is
apparently a major and there is absolutely
no justification in detaining her in a
protection home, as done by the Child
Welfare Committee in this case pending
investigating in the crime registered at the
instance of the detenue's father.

21. In the circumstances, this habeas
corpus
petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute.
The detenue, Smt. Joolee wife of Harsh
Goswami, daughter of Madan Giri, who is
present in Court, is ordered to be set at
liberty forthwith. She is free to go wherever
she likes and stay with whomsoever she
wants, including her husband.

22.
The
Headmistress,
Higher
Primary School (Composite School),
Kailash,
Bichpuri
Agra,
who
had
appeared in compliance with the order is
exempted from all future appearance.
The policemen, who have brought the
detenue in Court, are discharged of their
assignment. They will report back to the
respective headquarters.

23. Let the records produced by the
Headmistress be returned to her forthwith.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR , J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 963 of 2025

Muskan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ved Prakash Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the certificate produced from the
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School,
Bithoor,
Kanpur
Nagar
on
01.08.2025,
mentioning that the detenue studied there from
Class IV to VI, and, the transfer certificate
issued, without a date, are all bogus documents
and do not reflect the first petitioner's age
correctly.

(ii) What would constitute a date of birth
certificate from the school, within the meaning
of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94,
Sub- Section (2) of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, there is a precedence
to the class of evidence about the age of a
victim, like a juvenile. The first preference,
for the purpose of determining the age of
a victim, is the date of birth certificate
from the school or the matriculation or
equivalent
certificate
from
the