Full Text
Translation output
;/ C' ( $-41 &45 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)1585/2017
MS GUNJAN & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.A.Rajput,Advocate
W.P.(CRL)1585/2017
MS GUNJAN & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.A.Rajput,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI)& ORS Respondents
Through: Ms.Nandita Rao,ASC for R-l/State with Insp. Virender Kumar
Ms.Jasbir Kaur,Mr.Manmeet Singh and Mr.Yash Batra,Advocates for R-2to 6
Through: Ms.Nandita Rao,ASC for R-l/State with Insp. Virender Kumar
Ms.Jasbir Kaur,Mr.Manmeet Singh and Mr.Yash Batra,Advocates for R-2to 6
W.P.(CRL)1590/2017
MS GUNJAN & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.A.Rajput,Advocate
MS GUNJAN & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.A.Rajput,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI)& ANR Respondents
Through:Ms.Nandita Rao,ASCfor R-l/State with Insp. Virender Kumar
Ms.Jasbir Kaur,Mr.Manmeet Singh and Mr.Yash Batra,Advocates for R-2
Through:Ms.Nandita Rao,ASCfor R-l/State with Insp. Virender Kumar
Ms.Jasbir Kaur,Mr.Manmeet Singh and Mr.Yash Batra,Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
24.05.2017 Crl. M.A.8841/2017 (Exemption)in WP(Crl.l. 1585/2017
Crl. M.A.8866/2017 (Exemption!in WP(Crl.l. 1590/2017
Allowed subjecttojustexceptions.
WPrCrl.J 1585/2017 and WP(Crl)1590/2017 The petitioners are present in person with Mr. S.A. Rajput, Advocate. TheStateonthebasisofadvancecopyhasappeared ^
WP(Crl.)1585/2017and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page 1 of4■
2017:DHC:8199 <1^ ( A through Ms. Nandita Rao, additional standing counsel. The second respondent Jagdish Kumar and fourth respondent Ashok Kumar, as per the array in WP (Crl.) 1585/2017 are also present in person on their own with counsel Ms.Jasbir Kaur,advocate.
Status report has been submitted. The parties present and then- counsel have been heard. The record of investigation and the case diary have also been perused.
It needs to be noted that Jagdish Kumar, father of the first petitioner had lodged FIR no.247/2017 with police station Ranhola on
03.05.2017,inter alia, stating that his daughter(first petitioner)aged sixteen years six months had been missing and he had cause to suspect that she had been seduced away by someone. He filed a writ petition
(criminal) no.1387/2017 praying for a writ of habeas corpus came up before a division bench of this court on 08.05.2017 and
19.05.2017, copies ofthe orders recorded on which dates have been placed before this court for perusal. It appears the local police was unable to trace out the girl (first petitioner) missing at the stage of hearing of the said matter by the division bench. She has now surfaced, she being accompanied by the second petitioner (Sunny), both claiming to be major and to have married each other on
19.05.2017. Some documents and photographs in support of such claim ofmarriage have been submitted.
The investigation into the FIR is stated to have earlier revealed that the first petitioner had certain grievances against her family members and had indicated in writing that she was leaving the house ofher own. She claims,on being asked,that her date ofbirth is 1998.
Noticeably,she would not mention the specific date. Reliance is
WP(Crl.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page2of4 placed in this regard in the petition on the registration for issuanee of
Aadhar card on 21.05.2017 where the date of birth was declared as
09.10.1998. The document obviously cannot be taken as a clinching proofofthe age ofthe first petitioner,such mention ofthe age being based only on declaration made after the elopement. In contrast, the police has collected the eopy of the grade sheet-cum-certificate of performanee of the Secondary School Examination (2014-2016) of
Central Board ofSecondary Education,Delhi, where the date ofbirth ofthe first petitioner is recorded as 09.10.2000. In this view,the first petitioner is, prima facie, less than seventeen years in age and, therefore,a child.
The police has added Section 366 IPG for taking the investigation into the FIR further. The matter would undoubtedly require thorough investigation in as much as allegations have been made that the first petitioner has been sexually exploited, her photographs in some indecent poses having been taken allegedly by the second petitioner and posted on social media,she either not being privy to sueh irresponsible aets of eommission or not understanding the effect or importthereof. In these circumstances,the first petitioner is indeed ajuvenile in need ofprotection oflaw.
On being asked,the first petitioner refused to go with her father who is present in the court. She has been informed by the father that her mother is also present outside the court. Since she deelines to go with her parents, in the overall facts and circumstances, it will be proper that she is produced before the Child Welfare Committee immediately in the afternoon today itself so that appropriate directions asto her safe custody and welfare are issued in accordance
WP(Crl.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page3of4 with law.
Inspector Virender Kumar of Anti Trafficking Unit of Crime
Branch, who is the investigation officer is present in court. He is accompanied by W/HC Sunita, No.655/Crime. He is directed to take the necessary steps in above lightforthwith.
Needless to add, the Child Welfare Committee shall undertake all necessary inquiries including for determination ofthe age ofthe first petitioner.
^ Itis noted thatthe habeascorpuspetition,it being WP(Crl.)
1387/2017, is listed before the division bench on 30.05.2017.
Arrangements sihall be made for the first petitioner to be produced before the division bench on the said date atthe time ofhearing on the said habeas corpus petition.
By WP(Crl.) 1590/2017, prayer is made for quashing of FIR
247/2017 of police station Ranhola. Given the above noted set of facts, there is no good ground to block the investigation or quash the
FIR. The said writpetition is,therefore,dismissed.
Given the above set offacts, no further directions on WP(Crl.)
1585/2017 at this stage are called for. The said writ petition shall be listed on 17.07.2017 when the investigating officer shall submit an updated action taken report.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
K GA
MAY 24,2017 yg WP(CrI.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page4of4
24.05.2017 Crl. M.A.8841/2017 (Exemption)in WP(Crl.l. 1585/2017
Crl. M.A.8866/2017 (Exemption!in WP(Crl.l. 1590/2017
Allowed subjecttojustexceptions.
WPrCrl.J 1585/2017 and WP(Crl)1590/2017 The petitioners are present in person with Mr. S.A. Rajput, Advocate. TheStateonthebasisofadvancecopyhasappeared ^
WP(Crl.)1585/2017and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page 1 of4■
2017:DHC:8199 <1^ ( A through Ms. Nandita Rao, additional standing counsel. The second respondent Jagdish Kumar and fourth respondent Ashok Kumar, as per the array in WP (Crl.) 1585/2017 are also present in person on their own with counsel Ms.Jasbir Kaur,advocate.
Status report has been submitted. The parties present and then- counsel have been heard. The record of investigation and the case diary have also been perused.
It needs to be noted that Jagdish Kumar, father of the first petitioner had lodged FIR no.247/2017 with police station Ranhola on
03.05.2017,inter alia, stating that his daughter(first petitioner)aged sixteen years six months had been missing and he had cause to suspect that she had been seduced away by someone. He filed a writ petition
(criminal) no.1387/2017 praying for a writ of habeas corpus came up before a division bench of this court on 08.05.2017 and
19.05.2017, copies ofthe orders recorded on which dates have been placed before this court for perusal. It appears the local police was unable to trace out the girl (first petitioner) missing at the stage of hearing of the said matter by the division bench. She has now surfaced, she being accompanied by the second petitioner (Sunny), both claiming to be major and to have married each other on
19.05.2017. Some documents and photographs in support of such claim ofmarriage have been submitted.
The investigation into the FIR is stated to have earlier revealed that the first petitioner had certain grievances against her family members and had indicated in writing that she was leaving the house ofher own. She claims,on being asked,that her date ofbirth is 1998.
Noticeably,she would not mention the specific date. Reliance is
WP(Crl.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page2of4 placed in this regard in the petition on the registration for issuanee of
Aadhar card on 21.05.2017 where the date of birth was declared as
09.10.1998. The document obviously cannot be taken as a clinching proofofthe age ofthe first petitioner,such mention ofthe age being based only on declaration made after the elopement. In contrast, the police has collected the eopy of the grade sheet-cum-certificate of performanee of the Secondary School Examination (2014-2016) of
Central Board ofSecondary Education,Delhi, where the date ofbirth ofthe first petitioner is recorded as 09.10.2000. In this view,the first petitioner is, prima facie, less than seventeen years in age and, therefore,a child.
The police has added Section 366 IPG for taking the investigation into the FIR further. The matter would undoubtedly require thorough investigation in as much as allegations have been made that the first petitioner has been sexually exploited, her photographs in some indecent poses having been taken allegedly by the second petitioner and posted on social media,she either not being privy to sueh irresponsible aets of eommission or not understanding the effect or importthereof. In these circumstances,the first petitioner is indeed ajuvenile in need ofprotection oflaw.
On being asked,the first petitioner refused to go with her father who is present in the court. She has been informed by the father that her mother is also present outside the court. Since she deelines to go with her parents, in the overall facts and circumstances, it will be proper that she is produced before the Child Welfare Committee immediately in the afternoon today itself so that appropriate directions asto her safe custody and welfare are issued in accordance
WP(Crl.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page3of4 with law.
Inspector Virender Kumar of Anti Trafficking Unit of Crime
Branch, who is the investigation officer is present in court. He is accompanied by W/HC Sunita, No.655/Crime. He is directed to take the necessary steps in above lightforthwith.
Needless to add, the Child Welfare Committee shall undertake all necessary inquiries including for determination ofthe age ofthe first petitioner.
^ Itis noted thatthe habeascorpuspetition,it being WP(Crl.)
1387/2017, is listed before the division bench on 30.05.2017.
Arrangements sihall be made for the first petitioner to be produced before the division bench on the said date atthe time ofhearing on the said habeas corpus petition.
By WP(Crl.) 1590/2017, prayer is made for quashing of FIR
247/2017 of police station Ranhola. Given the above noted set of facts, there is no good ground to block the investigation or quash the
FIR. The said writpetition is,therefore,dismissed.
Given the above set offacts, no further directions on WP(Crl.)
1585/2017 at this stage are called for. The said writ petition shall be listed on 17.07.2017 when the investigating officer shall submit an updated action taken report.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
K GA
MAY 24,2017 yg WP(CrI.)1585/2017 and WP(Crl.)1590/2017 page4of4
JUDGMENT