# Juvenile 'X' Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 82
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1059 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51670
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
Sections 94, 102 & 18(3) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 302, 201, 376
& 511 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 -
Juvenile revisionist challenged order dated
07.07.2023 by Children's Court, dismissing
appeal against Juvenile Justice Board's order
(19.04.2022) to try him as an adult for heinous
offences (kidnapping, murder, attempted rape,
sexual assault on a 3.5-year-old girl). Court
held:
(1)
Juvenile
Justice
Board's
age
determination (16 years, 6 months) based on
school certificate (DOB 10.03.2001) under
Section 94(2)(i) was final, as unchallenged. (2)
Revisionist's claim of being 13 years, 11 months
based
on
High
School
marks-sheet
not
substantiated; original certificate's authenticity
upheld. (3) Board's decision to try juvenile as
adult
considered
psychiatric
report,
physical/mental capacity, and gravity of offence,
upheld by Children's Court. (4) No evidence of
arbitrary or illegal judicial process; revisionist's
grounds misconceived. (5) Heinous nature of
offence (murder, attempted rape) warranted no
leniency (Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P.,
(2022) 8 SCC 602; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St.
of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370; St. (UT of J&K) Vs
Shubam Sangra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1592;
Manoj Vs St. of Har., (2022) 6 SCC 187; Jyoti
Prakash Rai Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 1696).
Revision dismissed. (Paras 9-22)
Revision Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused make out a case for his conviction
and sentence and whether the accused has
made the confession after understanding
the nature of allegation made against him
and after understanding its consequences.

23. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the order of conviction and
sentence imposed upon the revisionist on
the basis of his confession only, when the
offence is not made out even if the
prosecution case is accepted to be true, is
unsustainable in law and the same deserves
to be set aside.

24. Accordingly, the revision is
allowed and the judgment and order dated
05.11.2020, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal
Case No.11109 of 2018 arising out of Case
Crime No.52 of 2018, under Section 13 of
the Gambling Act, Police Station Kotwali
Rudauli, District Faizabad, whereby the
revisionist has been convicted for the
aforesaid offence on the basis of his
confession and has been sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.100/- and to remain in custody
till the rising of the Court, is hereby set
aside and the revisionist is acquitted of the
charges.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 82
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1059 of 2023

Juvenile 'X' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Abhinav Srivastava, Rahul Srivastava
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
Sections 94, 102 & 18(3) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 302, 201, 376
& 511 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 -
Juvenile revisionist challenged order dated
07.07.2023 by Children's Court, dismissing
appeal against Juvenile Justice Board's order
(19.04.2022) to try him as an adult for heinous
offences (kidnapping, murder, attempted rape,
sexual assault on a 3.5-year-old girl). Court
held:
(1)
Juvenile
Justice
Board's
age
determination (16 years, 6 months) based on
school certificate (DOB 10.03.2001) under
Section 94(2)(i) was final, as unchallenged. (2)
Revisionist's claim of being 13 years, 11 months
based
on
High
School
marks-sheet
not
substantiated; original certificate's authenticity
upheld. (3) Board's decision to try juvenile as
adult
considered
psychiatric
report,
physical/mental capacity, and gravity of offence,
upheld by Children's Court. (4) No evidence of
arbitrary or illegal judicial process; revisionist's
grounds misconceived. (5) Heinous nature of
offence (murder, attempted rape) warranted no
leniency (Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P.,
(2022) 8 SCC 602; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St.
of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370; St. (UT of J&K) Vs
Shubam Sangra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1592;
Manoj Vs St. of Har., (2022) 6 SCC 187; Jyoti
Prakash Rai Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 1696).
Revision dismissed. (Paras 9-22)
Revision Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:
1. Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 8
SCC 602 (Para 10)

2. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St. of U.P., (2019)
12 SCC 370 (Para 11)

3. St. (UT of J&K) Vs Shubam Sangra, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1592 (Para 12)

4. Manoj Vs St. of Har., (2022) 6 SCC 187 (Para
13)

5. Jyoti Prakash Rai Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC
1696
(Para
14)
3 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
6. Parag Bhati Vs St. of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744
(Para 12)

7. Babloo Pasi Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2008) 13
SCC 133 (Para 13)

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

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I
appearing on behalf of the State and
perused the records.

2. By means of the instant revision
filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 the revisionist has made
following prayers:

"Wherefore it is prayed that the
present Criminal Revision may kindly be
allowed and the impugned order dated
07.07.2023 a Criminal Appeal 29/2023
Ram Pratap (Changed Name) vs. State of
U.P. by the Learned Court of Additional
District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO)
Ayodhya, in so far as it relates to the
present revisionist may kindly be set-aside.

It is further prayed that during
the pendency of this Criminal Revision
before this Hon'ble Court, the proceedings
of the case in the court below may kindly be
stayed.

It is further prayed that any other
relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case
may also kindly be granted to the
revisionists."

3. The impugned order dated
07.07.2023 is an order passed by the
Presiding
Officer,
Children's
Court,
Faizabad/Ayodhya dismissing the appeal
filed by the juvenile-delinquent against an
order dated 19.04.2023, passed by Juvenile
Justice Board holding that the juveniledelinquent needs to be tried as an adult and
referring the matter to the Children's Court.

4.

The
aforesaid
order
dated
19.04.2022 was passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board in furtherance of an order
dated 18.04.2022 whereby the revisionist
was declared to be a juvenile in conflict
with law and it was held that on the date of
the incident he was about 16 years, 6
months of age.

5. The order dated 18.04.2022, passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board was not
challenged by the revisionist and it has
attained
finality.
The
order
dated
19.04.2022, by which the matter was
referred to the Children's Court, has also
not been challenged in this revision.

6. The revisionist has merely
challenged the appellate order dated
07.07.2023 on the grounds that the decision
is bad in law, the impugned order has been
passed without application of mind to the
facts and circumstances of the case and
material available on record and it is
illegal,
arbitrary
and
without
any
application of judicial mind. It has further
been contended that as per the High School
marks-sheet of the revisionist, he was about
13 years, 11 months and 10 days at the time
of the incident and that the Sessions Court
has not considered the provisions contained
in Section 94 (2) (i) Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

7. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
provides as follows: -

"94.
Presumption
and
determination of age.- (1) Where, it is
obvious to the Committee or the Board,
based on the appearance of the person
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brought before it under any of the
provisions of this Act (other than for the
purpose of giving evidence) that the said
person is a child, the Committee or the
Board shall record such observation stating
the age of the child as nearly as may be
and proceed with the inquiry under Section
14 or Section 36, as the case may be,
without waiting for further confirmation of
the age.

(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-

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;

the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

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.

(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person.

8. A bare reading of Section 94 (2) (i)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 indicates that the
date of birth certificate from the school or
the
matriculation
or
the
equivalent
certificate from the concerned examination
board, have been given equivalent weight.

9. In the order dated 18.04.2022, the
Juvenile Justice Board has mentioned that
as per the marks-sheet of the revisionist of
the High School examinations held in the
year 2018, his date of birth was 12.05.2004
and he has passed the High School
examination at the age of less than 131⁄2
years. The date of the incident is
22.04.2018. The prosecution has produced
a certificate dated 10.08.2018 issued by
Modern
School,
Poora-1,
Faizabad,
wherein the date of birth of the juveniledelinquent is mentioned to be 10.03.2001.
Therefore, it was a document mentioned in
Section 94 (2) (i) Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act.

10. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has relied upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P.:
(2022) 8 SCC 602, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to numerous
precedents on this point and summarized
the law in this regard as follows: -

"33.
What
emerges
on
a
cumulative consideration of the aforesaid
catena of judgments is as follows:

33.1. A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding, even after a final disposal of
the case. A delay in raising the claim of
juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection
of such claim. It can also be raised for the
first time before this Court.

33.2. An application claiming
juvenility could be made either before the
court or the JJ Board.

33.2.1.
When
the
issue
of
juvenility arises before a court, it would be
3 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
85
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9
of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is
brought before a committee or JJ Board,
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.

33.2.2. If an application is filed
before the court claiming juvenility, the
provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of
the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied
or read along with sub-section (2) of
Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the
purpose of recording a finding stating the
age of the person as nearly as may be.

33.2.3. When an application
claiming juvenility is made under Section
94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board
when the matter regarding the alleged
commission of offence is pending before a
court, then the procedure contemplated
under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would
apply. Under the said provision if the JJ
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Board shall
undertake the process of age determination
by seeking evidence and the age recorded
by the JJ Board to be the age of the person
so brought before it shall, for the purpose
of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true
age of that person. Hence the degree of
proof required in such a proceeding
before the JJ Board, when an application
is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when
the trial is before the criminal court
concerned, is higher than when an inquiry
is made by a court before which the case
regarding the commission of the offence is
pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ Act,
2015).

33.3. That when a claim for
juvenility is raised, the burden is on the
person raising the claim to satisfy the court
to discharge the initial burden. However,
the
documents
mentioned
in
Rules
12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules,
2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or subsection (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act,
2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie
satisfaction of the court. On the basis of
the aforesaid documents a presumption of
juvenility may be raised.

33.4. The said presumption is
however not conclusive proof of the age of
juvenility and the same may be rebutted by
contra evidence let in by the opposite side.

33.5. That the procedure of an
inquiry by a court is not the same thing as
declaring the age of the person as a
juvenile sought before the JJ Board when
the case is pending for trial before the
criminal court concerned. In case of an
inquiry, the court records a prima facie
conclusion
but
when
there
is
a
determination of age as per sub-section
(2) of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, a
declaration is made on the basis of
evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ
Board shall be deemed to be the true age of
the person brought before it. Thus, the
standard of proof in an inquiry is different
from that required in a proceeding where
the determination and declaration of the
age of a person has to be made on the
basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted
only if worthy of such acceptance.

33.6. That it is neither feasible
nor desirable to lay down an abstract
formula to determine the age of a person.
It has to be on the basis of the material on
record and on appreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties in each case.

33.7. This Court has observed
that a hypertechnical approach should not
be adopted when evidence is adduced on
behalf of the accused in support of the plea
that he was a juvenile.

33.8. If two views are possible on
the same evidence, the court should lean in
favour of holding the accused to be a
juvenile in borderline cases. This is in
order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile
in conflict with law. At the same time, the
court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015
is not misused by persons to escape
punishment
after
having
committed
serious offences.

33.9.
That
when
the
determination of age is on the basis of
evidence such as school records, it is
necessary that the same would have to be
considered as per Section 35 of the
Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or
official
document
maintained
in
the
discharge of official duty would have
greater credibility than private documents.

33.10. Any document which is in
consonance with public documents, such as
matriculation certificate, could be accepted
by the court or the JJ Board provided such
public document is credible and authentic
as per the provisions of the Evidence Act
viz. Section 35 and other provisions.

33.11. Ossification test cannot be
the sole criterion for age determination and
a mechanical view regarding the age of a
person cannot be adopted solely on the
basis of medical opinion by radiological
examination.
Such
evidence
is
not
conclusive evidence but only a very useful
guiding factor to be considered in the
absence of documents mentioned in Section
94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."

11. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v.
State of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370, the High
Court had held that the accused was a
juvenile on the basis of the date of birth
entered in his matriculation certificate. In
appeal,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
scrutinized the evidence and found that the
date of birth in the matriculation certificate
was recorded on the basis of the date of
birth recorded in the previous school where
the accused was a student from Class V to
Class X and it was recorded without any
underlying document. On the other hand,
there was a clear and unimpeachable
evidence in the form of the date of birth
recorded in the records of Saket Vidya
Sthali School. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
reversed the order of this High Court based
on the findings recorded on the basis of the
matriculation certificate. Thus the legal
position is that the date of birth entered in
the High School certificate has not to be
believed blindly, if the date of birth entered
in the records of the school that was first
attended by the accused is to the contrary.
In such circumstances, the school record
has to be considered for ascertaining the
date of birth of the accused.

12. In State (UT of J&K) v. Shubam
Sangra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1592, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

73. Thus, it is no doubt true that if
there is a clear and unambiguous case in
favour of the juvenile accused that he was a
minor on the date of the incident and the
documentary evidence at least prima facie
establishes the same, he would be entitled
to the special protection under the Juvenile
Justice Act. However, when an accused
commits a heinous and grave crime like
the one on hand and thereafter attempts to
take the statutory shelter under the guise
of being a minor, a casual or cavalier
approach while recording as to whether
an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be
permitted as the courts are enjoined upon
to perform their duties with the object of
protecting the confidence of a common
man in the institution entrusted with the
administration of justice. As observed by
this Court in Parag Bhati [Parag Bhati v.
State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744], the
benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice
Act would thus be extended to only such
3 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
87
cases wherein the accused is held to be a
juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie
evidence inspiring confidence regarding his
minority as the benefit of the possibilities
of two views in regard to the age of the
alleged accused who is involved in grave
and serious offence which he is alleged to
have committed and gave effect to it in a
well-planned
manner
reflecting
his
maturity of mind rather than innocence
indicating that his plea of juvenility is
more in the nature of a shield to dodge or
dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to
come to his rescue.

13. In Manoj v. State of Haryana,
(2022) 6 SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -

"41. ... the plea of juvenility has
to be raised in a bonafide and truthful
manner. If the reliance is on a document to
seek juvenility which is not reliable or
dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be
treated to be juvenile keeping in view that
the Act is a beneficial legislation. As also
held in Babloo Pasi [Babloo Pasi v. State
of Jharkhand, (2008) 13 SCC 133 : (2009)
3 SCC (Cri) 266] , the provisions of the
statute are to be interpreted liberally but
the benefit cannot be granted to the
appellant who has approached the Court
with untruthful statement."

14. In Manoj (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has referred to an earlier
decision in the case of Jyoti Prakash Rai
Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 2008 SC 1696,
wherein it was held that though the Act is a
beneficial legislation but principles of
beneficial legislation are to be applied only
for the purpose of interpretation of the
statute and not for arriving at a conclusion
as to whether a person is juvenile or not.

15. When this court examines the
facts of the case in the light of the law
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above mentioned cases, it appears that
the opposite party no.2 had lodged the
F.I.R. on 22.07.2022 stating that her
daughter aged about three and half years
had gone missing from her home at about
3.30
p.m.
on
22.04.2018.
After
investigation a charge sheet was submitted
on 29.04.2018, stating that the dead body
of the missing girl child was recovered on
25.04.2018 and thereafter Section 302
I.P.C. was added. The dead body was
hidden in a sack tied with a rope. Pests had
developed in the dead body. The charge
sheet was submitted against the juveniledelinquent for commission of offences
under Sections 363, 302, 201, 376, 511
I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and
three other co-accused persons namely,
father, mother and brother of the juvenilerevisionist were charged for commission of
offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

16. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has contended that the certificate
issued by the Modern School was not
produced in original but a mere photocopy
thereof was filed.

17. The contention raised by the
learned counsel for the revisionist cannot
be examined by this court at this stage as
the order dated 18.04.2022 states that the
certificate was issued before the Juvenile
Justice Board and not its copy and this
order has not been assailed by the
revisionist and it has attained finality. There
is no material before this Court to establish
that the original certificate regarding date
of birth was not produced before Juvenile
Justice Board. When the Juvenile Justice
Board in the order dated 18.04.2022 stated
that the certificate dated 10.08.2018 issued
by Modern School, Poora-1, Faizabad,
wherein the date of birth of the juvenile-
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delinquent is mentioned to be 10.03.2001,
was presented before the Board, in absence
of any material to controvert this statement
this court cannot presume that the aforesaid
narration is incorrect.

18. In furtherance of the aforesaid
order dated 18.04.2022 the Juvenile Justice
Board passed an order dated 19.04.2022 for
transferring the matter to be tried by the
Children's Court Section 18 (3) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. In the impugned order
dated 07.07.2023, passed by the Children's
Court it has been held that by means of an
order dated 18.04.2022 the Juvenile Justice
Board has ascertained the age of the
juvenile to be 16 years, 6 months and no
appeal was filed against the aforesaid order
and it has attained finality. Therefore, the
Children's Court had no other option
except to treat the age of the juvenile to be
16 years, 6 months as ascertained by the
order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, which has attained
finality. The Juvenile Justice Board has
passed the order dated 19.04.2022 after
taking into consideration the report of the
Psychiatrist and assessing the physical and
mental capabilities of the juvenile as also
his capacity to understand the consequence
of the offence allegedly committed by him.
The juvenile is an accused of kidnapping a
girl child aged about three and half years
and killing her by strangulating her. An
attempt to rape was made against the victim
and sexual assault was made on her. Her
dead body was hidden in a sack and three
days after the incident it was thrown away
from the rooftop. Pests had developed in
the dead body. These facts indicate the
physical and mental capacity of the
juvenile. The appellate court found that all
the facts and circumstances of the case had
been duly considered by the Juvenile
Justice Board and therefore there was no
need for any interference in that order.

19. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the grounds taken in the memo
of revision that the impugned order has
been passed in an illegal and arbitrary
manner and without any application of
judicial mind, is absolutely misconceived.
It appears that the learned counsel for the
revisionist has used such heavy words
without taking care to understand its
implication and without even going through
the appellate order. The lack of challenge to
the original order dated 19.04.2022 against
which the appeal was filed wherein the
impugned order dated 07.07.2023 was
passed clearly indicates lack of proper
professional care
and concern
while
drafting the revision.

20. While deciding the plea of
juvenility the courts have to take a just
view after taking into consideration all the
relevant facts and circumstances of the case
and the material available on record, to
ensure justice not only to juveniledelinquent but to the victim of the offence,
who in the present case was a girl aged
about three and half years and upon whom
an attempt to rape was committed who was
subjected to sexual assault and who was
killed ultimately. The offence committed
falls in the category of the most heinous
offences that can be committed by any
human being.

21. Therefore, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
no lenient view can be taken favouring the
accused - revisionist.

22. The revision lacks merit and the
same
is
accordingly
dismissed.
3 All. Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
89
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 89
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1079 of 2023

Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar &
Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ravi Yadav, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastav
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 & 406 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections
3/5 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 245, 397 & 401 - Revisionists,
married
sisters-in-law
of
complainant,
challenged dismissal of discharge application in
Complaint Case No. 221 of 2004 for alleged
dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty.
Court held: (1) General and omnibus allegations
against
revisionists
without
specific
roles
attributed; no evidence they resided with
complainant or benefited from dowry demands.
(2) Revisionists, living in distant cities (Calcutta,
Thane), unlikely to be involved in matrimonial
discord. (3) Trial court failed to consider lack of
specific allegations and probability of false
implication, mechanically dismissing discharge
application. (4) Supreme Court precedents
emphasize caution against roping in distant
relatives in matrimonial disputes without prima
facie evidence (Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs
St. of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 820; Geeta Mehrotra
Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Preeti Gupta
Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Rajesh
Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472;
Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273; K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452). Revision partly allowed; impugned
order set aside regarding revisionists; matter
remanded for fresh consideration of discharge
application. (Paras 11-21)
Revision Partly Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs St. of Bihar,
AIR 2022 SC 820 (Para 11, 17)

2. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741 (Para 12, 16, 17)

3. Preeti Gupta Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 (Para 12, 15)

4. Rajesh Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC
472 (Para 12, 13)

5. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273 (Para 12, 14)

6. K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018) 14
SCC 452 (Para 12, 17)

7. G.VS Rao Vs L.H.VS Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC
693 (Para 12, 16)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. By means of instant Criminal
Revision the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 23.12.2023
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2 Gorakhpur in
Complaint Case No.221 of 2004 (Alka
Rani Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others),
whereby application for discharge under
Section 245 Cr.P.C. moved by accused
persons Rajesh Agarwal, Maya Devi,
Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar and
Sunita Tulsyan has been dismissed by the
trial court.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ravi