X MINORversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7559 of 2025

X Minor
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :   Sheetala Prasad Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   Rakesh Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 84
                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant
and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the
entire material available on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist to set
aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2022 (X. Minor vs. State of U.P.), as well as
order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sant Kabir
Nagar in Report No. 61 of 2022 [State vs. M.A. (imagery name)], arising
out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and
Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Belharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that brief facts
of the case are that on 18.03.2022, an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party
No. 2 against the revisionist with the allegation that on 16.03.2022, the
revisionist had enticed away his minor daughter. It is further submitted
that after the recovery of the victim, her statement was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she clearly stated that she had voluntarily
gone with the revisionist and that there was a love affair between them. It
is next submitted that the family member of the victim produced her
educational certificate, in which her date of birth is recorded as
"21.02.2007". Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating
                                                          CRLR No. 7559 of 2025
                                2


Officer, without conducting a proper investigation, submitted a charge
sheet against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366, and 376 I.P.C., and
Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Belharkala, District Sant
Kabir Nagar. It is also argued that the revisionist is an illiterate person and
does not possess any educational certificate, therefore, on the basis of the
Radiological Report, his age was determined to be 17 years, and he was
declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated
27.07.2022. It is further submitted that no remedy was availed against the
said order, and thus, it has attained finality. Thereafter, an enquiry was
conducted under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the
Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 12.10.2022, held that there was a
need to try the revisionist as an adult and transferred the case to the
Children’s Court for trial. It is further submitted that the revisionist was
released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar, vide order dated 15.09.2022.

Aggrieved against the order dated 12.10.2022, the revisionist preferred an
appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar.
However, the said appeal was heard and dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Sant Kabir Nagar,
vide order dated 30.08.2025, without properly considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the courts below failed to
consider the material facts and circumstances and passed the impugned
orders in a most mechanical manner, which is not sustainable in the eyes
of law. It is further submitted that the questions put to the revisionist by
the Juvenile Justice Board were inadequate to assess his mental and
physical capacity to commit such an offence, as well as his ability to
understand the consequences thereof in the situation in which the alleged
act occurred. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the
courts below failed to consider that both the revisionist and the victim
were aged about 16–17 years and had left their homes in heat of passion,
and that no offence was committed by the revisionist. Further, it has not
been considered that, according to the medical report, the age of the
revisionist at the time of the alleged occurrence was 16 years, 10 months,
and 9 days. As per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a
                                                       CRLR No. 7559 of 2025
                               3


margin of one year ought to be given, and thus, the revisionist would be
below 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, no order
under Sections 15 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 ought to have
been passed against him. It is lastly submitted that the revisionist has no
criminal history apart from the present case. The findings recorded by the
courts below are contrary to the Social Investigation Report and are based
on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, while passing the impugned
orders, the learned court concerned as well as learned Juvenile Justice
Board have not applied their judicial mind in passing the impugned
orders. Lastly, he prays that the impugned orders passed by the courts
below are liable to be set aside by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well
as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for setting aside the
impugned orders and submitted that the order passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, which has been affirmed by the appellate court is in
consonance with law. It is next submitted by them that no interference is
required by this Court and the present criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and learned AGA for
the State and perused the entire material available on record.

6. As per the medical report, the age of the juvenile on the date of the
alleged incident was determined by the Board to be 16 years, 10 months,
and 09 days. The applicant/revisionist was declared a juvenile by the
Board vide order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, an inquiry and
preliminary assessment were conducted by the Board under Section 15 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as the
alleged offence falls within the category of a “heinous offence.” As
defined under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, a “heinous offence” includes offences for which
the minimum punishment prescribed under the Indian Penal Code or any
other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or
more. Pursuant to this, the Board, vide order dated 12.10.2022, and after
considering the reports submitted by the expert panel, including an
experienced clinical psychologist and psycho-social workers, transferred
                                                                                 CRLR No. 7559 of 2025
                                             4


the matter to the concerned Children’s Court. The Board found that on the
date of occurrence, the juvenile was above 16 years of age and upon
consideration of the psychologist’s report and the Social Investigation
Report, and in view of the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 18 of
the Act, directed transfer of the case under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile
Justice Act for trial of the juvenile as an adult before the competent court.

7. An appeal was also preferred by the revisionist before the First
Appellate Court, i.e., the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar. The Appellate Court, vide order dated
30.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 12.10.2022
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

8. The main contention relates to the provisions of Sections 15 and 18(3)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

9. Here, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions contained
in Section 15 of the Act regarding the preliminary assessment into
heinous offences by Board, which reads as under:-

"Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.—(1) In case of
a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is
above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with
regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he
allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:

Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or

psycho-social workers or other experts.


Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but

is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence.


(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be
disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be,
for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of
                                                                                                                 CRLR No. 7559 of 2025
                                                                               5


                                    section 101:


                                    Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in

                                    section 14."


                                    Further, Section 18(3), which reads as under:-

                                    "Section 18(3). Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass
                                    an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may
                                    order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try
                                    such offences."

                                    10. In the present case, the learned Juvenile Justice Board concerned
                                    conducted the preliminary assessment and, after considering the Social
                                    Investigation Report and the report of the expert panel passed the
                                    impugned order dated 12.10.2022. It is also evident from the record that
                                    the Appellate Court examined the matter and affirmed the order of the
                                    Board transferring the case to the Children’s Court under the provisions
                                    of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

                                    11. From the above discussion, this Court finds that the preliminary
                                    assessment conducted by the Board was as per the norms and procedure
                                    provided under the J.J. Act, 2015 and model rules. Before passing the
                                    impugned order, the concerned J.J. Board has considered the report
                                    submitted by the expert panel regarding the conduct and behaviour of the
                                    child. So, there is no illegality, perversity, or error in the impugned
                                    orders, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted.
                                    Consequently, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    12. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby
                                    dismissed.



                                                                                                           (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
                                    April 7, 2026
                                    Brijesh




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad