Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41465 Court No. - 13 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 263 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhu (Minor) Thru. Her Natural Guardian Mohter Nirmala Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Shukla,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Sri Vivek Pandey, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 4 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding thereby directing the opposite parties to produce the detenue namely Madhu Soni before this Hon'ble court, who is detained under the illegal custody of opposite party no.4 by an illegal and arbitrary manner and handed over to her custody of the Mother after considering the all paramount consideration of the minor girl detenue, Natural guardian and Mother of the detenue, in the interest of justice." 4. The position which emerges for the record is as under:- (i) This Court finds that an FIR dated 21.11.2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0635/2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(3) BNS, 2023, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya, was lodged by the present petitioner namely Nirmala Devi against the opposite party no.4. According to this FIR, the opposite party no.4 enticed away her minor daughter/detenue of the petitioner. (ii) Prior to aforesaid FIR dated 21.11.2024, one another FIR was lodged by one Prem Shanker, maternal uncle of the detenue registered as Case Crime No. 248/2023 under Sections 363/366 IPC and Section 7,8, 11 and 12 of POCSO Act at Police Station-Itwa, District- Siddharth Nagar against the opposite party no.4. This FIR indicates that opposite party no.4 enticed away the minor aged about 17 years. (iii) A conjoint reading of aforesaid, prima-facie it appears that at the time of lodging of FIR dated 21.11.2024, the detenue was major and the same also indicates, that there is a discrepancy with regard to the age of minor/detenue. (iv) The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Siddharth Nagar, vide order dated 02.07.2024, framed the charges against the opposite party no.4. (v) With regard to second FIR i.e. FIR dated 21.11.2024, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8971 of 2024 (Madhu Soni and another Versus State of U.P. and Others), protected the interest of detenue and opposite party no.4 in the present petition. It is to be noted that detenue is one of the petitioner in this petition. Relevant portion of order dated 28.11.2024, reads as under:- "4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and have married with each other by their own free will on 20.11.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in Arya Samaj Mandir, Surendra Nagar, Lucknow. The copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Petitioner no.1 has annexed a copy of her Aadhar Card and medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, District-Siddhartnagar as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and petitioner No.2 has also annexed a copy of his Aadhar Card as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition as proof of age. They are enjoying and living peaceful matrimonial life. Learned counsel for petitioners also undertake to get the marriage of petitioners registered under the U.P. Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within a period of four weeks. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that earlier also an FIR dated 31.12.2023 was lodged against the petitioner No.2 bearing Case Crime No.0248 of 2023 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Etwa, District-Siddhartnagar and as per the aforesaid FIR dated 31.12.2023 lodged by maternal uncle (brother of the informant of the present FIR) of the petitioner No.1 the age of the petitioner No.1 was around 17 years as on 31.12.2023 and now she is more than eighteen years of age and in support of her age she has also annexed her Aadhar Card and certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Siddarthnagar. 5. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the transfer certificate of petitioner No.1 prepared by the private respondents is false, which is annexed as Annexure No.SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that the age of the petitioner No.1 is 15 years as per the transfer certificate, however, the same is in conflict with the FIR dated 31.12.2023 lodged by maternal uncle (brother of the informant of the present FIR) of the petitioner No.1 and the said transfer certificate is yet to be verified by the police authorities from the original register of the concerned school and from other documents with regard to age of the petitioner No.1. 7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners only in order to harass them, as such, the arrest of the petitioners may be stayed." 5. Upon due consideration of the facts, on being confronted, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the present petition and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy as available under law. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 7. Office is directed to return back all the certified/original copies of order and documents, annexed in the present petition, to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if he applies for the and submit the copies of same. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench