# Informant/Father of Victim v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1068
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-25
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 629 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/informant-father-of-victim-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51224
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 376-D & 506 - Juvenile
Justice Act, - Sections 94 & 94(2) -
Information
Technology
Act,
2000
-
Sections 67-A - Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections
5-G & 6 - Application u/s 482 - challenging the
Juvenile Justice Board's order dated 16.11.2023
- which declared the accused (opposite party
no. 2) as a juvenile involving serious charges
under IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act - The
petitioner argued that the Board ignored
discrepancies in age records, particularly the
implausible five-month age gap between the
accused and his sister, and relied on a medical
report instead of school certificates as mandated
under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act - St.
opposed the petition, asserting that the Board acted
within legal bounds by ordering a medical
examination due to doubts over the age - held -
although the petition was maintainable under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process, there was
no illegality in the Board's decision, which followed
due procedure - consequently, present application is
dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to
raise all relevant issues before the trial court, which
may consider them in accordance with law, especially
given the gravity of the allegations.
(Para - 6, 7, 9)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In my view, the kind of
explanation rendered herein does not
satisfy the observations of Apex Court that
if delay has occurred for reasons which
does not smack of mala fide, the Court
should be reluctant to refuse condonation.
On the contrary, I find that here is a case
which shows a complete careless and
reckless long delay on the part of appellant
which has remain virtually unexplained at
all. Therefore, I do not find any reason to
exercise my judicial discretion exercising
judiciously so as to justify condonation of
delay in the present case.

18. Accordingly, the application for
condonation of delay is rejected.

19. Application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.

20. Consequently, the appeal does not
survive and is accordingly dismissed.

21. No order as to costs.

22. Consign to record.

23. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the learned trial court for its
compliance.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1068
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 629 of 2024

Informant/Father of Victim ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, Dildar Khan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 376-D & 506 - Juvenile
Justice Act, - Sections 94 & 94(2) -
Information
Technology
Act,
2000
-
Sections 67-A - Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections
5-G & 6 - Application u/s 482 - challenging the
Juvenile Justice Board's order dated 16.11.2023
- which declared the accused (opposite party
no. 2) as a juvenile involving serious charges
under IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act - The
petitioner argued that the Board ignored
discrepancies in age records, particularly the
implausible five-month age gap between the
accused and his sister, and relied on a medical
report instead of school certificates as mandated
under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act - St.
opposed the petition, asserting that the Board acted
within legal bounds by ordering a medical
examination due to doubts over the age - held -
although the petition was maintainable under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process, there was
no illegality in the Board's decision, which followed
due procedure - consequently, present application is
dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to
raise all relevant issues before the trial court, which
may consider them in accordance with law, especially
given the gravity of the allegations.
(Para - 6, 7, 9)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -
1. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & ors. Vs
St. of Mah. & anr. - (2009) 2 SCC 370,

2. Prabha Chawla Vs St. of Rajasthan & anr. -
(2016) 16 SCC 30,

3. Dr. Mohd. Iqbal Gaji Vs St. of U.P. & anr. -
Application U/S 482 No. 20368/2017 - order dt.
7.4.2023,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)
2 All. Informant/Father of Victim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1069

1. Heard Sri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for
State.

2. In view of the proposed order
notice to opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are
dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition the
petitioner has prayed following relief :

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash/ set aside the impugned
order dated 16-11-2023 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in case
crime No.263/2023 u/s 376-D, 506 I.P.C.
67-A IT. Act & 5G/6 P.O.CS.O Act of P.S
Sandila Distt Hardoi thereby declaring the
O.P. No.2 as juvenile without considering
the relevant materials available on record,
to secure the ends of justice & to prevent
the abuse of the process of the Court."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the impugned order
dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Hardoi
is
illegal,
unwarranted and in the aforesaid order the
learned Authority / Board concerned has
ignored the
apparent error,
i.e.
the
difference of age between the opposite
party no. 2 and his real sister is only five
months, as per the High School certificates
of both the persons and the age difference
between the real brother and sister may not
be five months in any manner whatsoever.
The specific ground has been taken on
behalf of petitioner before the Juvenile
Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the
'Board') but the Board, while considering
the medical examination report, ignored the
High School certificates of the opposite
party no. 2 and his sister. Learned counsel
has stated that the second eventuality as per
section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would
come only when the first eventuality may
not be liable to be examined and if first
eventuality as per section 94 of the Act is
available, the other eventuality of section
94 of the Act may not be taken into
account, therefore, he has submitted that
the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the
Board declaring the opposite party no. 2 as
juvenile may be set aside. Section 94 (2) of
the Act is being reproduced as under :

"(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
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."

5. Sri Singh, learned AGA has firstly
raised
the
objection
regarding
maintainability
of
this
petition
by
submitting that the order dated 16.11.2023
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may be assailed by filing revision but the
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance of the dictum of Apex Court
in re: Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited
and others vs. State of Maharashtra and
another : (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases
370,
Prabha
Chawla
vs.
State
of
Rajasthan and another : ( 2016) 16
Supreme Court Cases 30 as well as
decision of this Court in Application U/S
482 No. 20368 of 2017 : Dr. Mod. Iqbal
Gaji vs. State of U.P. and another
(judgment and order dated 7.4.2023)
wherein it has been held that so as to
prevent the abuse of the process of the law
the extraordinary remedy which is inherent
power of this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be
invoked. Sri Singh has further submitted
that in the present case as per the High
School certificate of the opposite party no.
2 he was a person below the age of 16
years but when the aforesaid fact was
disputed before the Board on the basis of
two High School Mark sheets one of the
opposite party no. 2 and second of his real
sister wherein the age difference between
the brother and sister is only five months
the Board directed for medical examination
and on the basis of medical examination
report dated 1.11.2023 the age of opposite
party
was
determined
as
16
years,
therefore, on the basis of aforesaid
examination the opposite party no. 2 was
declared juvenile. Therefore, Sri Singh has
stated that there is no infirmity or illegality
in the order dated 16.11.2023 and the
aforesaid order impugned should not be
said to be an abuse of the process of law in
any manner whatsoever.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record as well as having regard
the dictum of Apex Court in re: Dhariwal
Tobacco Products Limited and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and another :
(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370,
Prabha Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and
another : ( 2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases
30 as well as decision of this Court in
Application U/S 482 No. 20368 of 2017 :
Dr. Mod. Iqbal Gaji vs. State of U.P. and
another
(judgment
and
order
dated
7.4.2023), at the outset I held that if there is
any case wherein despite there being an
alternative remedy but there is also an
apparent abuse of the process of law, the
powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be
invoked to cure such abuse of the process
of law, therefore, in that way this petition is
maintainable u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

7. So far as the merits of the case are
concerned the perusal of the impugned
order dated 16.11.2023 makes it crystal
clear that after perusing the High School
Certificate of the opposite party no. 2
whereby it appeared to the Board that
opposite party no. 2 is juvenile but
considering the objection from the side of
the petitioner to the effect that there may
not be age difference between the real
brother and sister of five months, so the
direction for medical examination was
issued and after perusing the medical
examination
report
dated
1.11.2023
wherein the fact emerged that the opposite
party no. 2 appears to be aged about 16
years, he has been declared juvenile,
therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order dated 16.11.2023. Hence, there
is no need to interfere in this matter.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is
dismissed.

9. However, it is always open to the
petitioner to raise all the aforesaid pleas
and grounds before the learned trial court
and it is needless to say that the learned
2 All. Pragat Gupta @ Satyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071
trial court may consider those pleas and
grounds at the appropriate stage of trial
strictly in accordance with law. Notably, the
allegations against the opposite party no. 2
are very serious and if those allegations are
proved beyond all reasonable doubts, the
learned trial court may award appropriate
punishment
considering
the
amended
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act as well as
relevant sections of Indian Penal Code, if
the trial court finds it appropriate to do so.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1071
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 646 of 2024

Pragat Gupta @ Satyam ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Siddharth Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Shishir Pradhan

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
493 - Cohabitation caused by a man
deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful
marriage,
Section
496
-
Marriage
ceremony
fraudulently
gone
through
without lawful marriage, Section 506 -
criminal
intimidation
-
essential
ingredients of Section 493 : Deceitful
representation by the accused - False
belief of lawful marriage in the woman -
Cohabitation
or
sexual
intercourse
resulting from deception - allegations in
the
FIR
must
demonstrate
these
ingredients. (Para -12)
Complainant
alleged
-
Applicant-accused
promised to marry her - applied vermilion
(sindoor) to her head - raped her - did not fulfill
his marriage promise - Applicant-accused was
summoned to face trial. (Para - 1 to 4 ,23)

HELD: - Complainant's allegations do not
establish the essential ingredients of offenses
under Sections 493, 496, and 506 IPC.
Applicants' actions did not amount to deception
or fraudulent marriage. Criminal proceedings are
quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of
the law. (Para -14 to 22 ,24)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs St. of Jharkh.,
(2013) 1 SCC 562

2. Arun Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2020) 3 SCC 736

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A.
appearing on behalf of the State and Sri
Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has
sought quashing of the impugned order
dated 17.07.2023, summoning the applicant
to face trial and the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.33 of 2019: Vinita
Chaudhari
Vs.
Pragat
Gupta,
under
Sections 493, 496 & 506 I.P.C.Police
Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli
pending in the court of learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/FTC-III, Raebareli.

3. The opposite party no.2 has filed a
complaint dated 07.01.2019, under Sections
376, 506 I.P.C. stating that there was a