Sangeeta Vs. State

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - in these circumstances, the learned magistrate thought fit that she may be sent to nari niketan, where she may feel secure and safe......learned government advocate that parties are hindu and there can be no agreement according to the hindu marriage act, 1955.3. we have heard both the parties at length and gone through the relevant documents. anx. 3 dated july 30, 1992, which is order passed by learned judicial magistrate, kama, bharatpur, there is mention that her statement was recorded under section 164 cr. p.c., in which, she has stated that willad and one bittu committed rape upon her. she has further expressed her desire by way of application that she may be kept at secured place and does not want to go even with her parents because they gave beatings to her. thereafter, the learned magistrate talked to her personally also. in these circumstances, the learned magistrate thought fit that she may be sent to nari niketan, where she may feel secure and safe.4. the learned counsel stressed that in the matter of sirajul hague (supra) this court allowed the habess corpus petition, even though, accused in that case was alleged to have committed offence under section 366 ipc. in the matter under consideration we are of the considered opinion that a person against whom mst. sangeeta has given statement under section 164 cr. p.c. that he has committed rape with her alongwith his friend, cannot be said to be the next friend in the capacity to approach this court by way of habeas corpus petition. habeas corpus petition can be maintained only, by any person/ members of the family or by some other person, who has to properly look after the person, who is illegally confined. we, are, therefore, do not consider that willad alias niranjan to be a fit and proper person in the capacity of next friend to approach this court by way of habeas corpus petition. the same is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.5. however, any of the family members or mst. sangeeta herself will be at liberty to apply or any court of law for any grievance that they wanted to be redressed.with this observation, the habeas corpus.....