# Juvenile-X v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6596 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50391
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468
& 471 - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section
- 18(3): - Application U/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned order as well as for a direction to
the learned magistrate to transferred the case
before Juvenile Justice Board - FIR, against
unknown persons - offence of cheating by
impersonation - investigation - Recovery -
charge-sheet
against
either
persons
-
cognizance drawn against all the accused
persons
-
Applicant
moved
regular
Bail
application claiming juvenile - court held that, -
at the time of commission of alleged offence
applicant was about 16 years old and he was
declared as juvenile by the order passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board and therefore the
magistrate concerned is directed to send the file
of the instant case to the Juvenile Justice
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Board/Children's Court having jurisdiction to try
the case against the applicant in terms of
section 18(3) of the Act, 2015 - accordingly,
application is allowed. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15)

Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Barun Chandra Thakur Vs Master Bholu & anr.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 870

## Text

7 All. Juvenile-X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
151
required to be adjudged after appreciation
of the evidence.

11. In the present matter, the applicant
has taken plea of such structural defect just
to get rid of his criminal liability by
seeking quashment of impugned order in
question without making any plea about the
non-liability of amount to make payment or
the plea of any debt or other liability of
complainant
to
rebut
the
stand
of
complainant.

12. It is well settled that for the
purpose of quashing of a complaint, the
High Court cannot look into the defence of
the accused. The Court is only required to
see whether on the basis of the averments
made in the complaint and the relevant
particulars produced by the complainant,
there are grounds for proceeding against
the accused. Inherent power of quashing
criminal proceedings U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised very sparingly and
with great circumspection. It does not
confer on the court to act arbitrarily as per
its own whims and caprice. At this stage,
the Courts could not have gone into the
merits and reached a conclusion that there
are no existing debt or liability and quash
the complaint. Therefore, the basic law is
that the complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be
quashed by High Court by taking recourse
to Section 482 Cr.P.C, if disputed questions
of facts are involved which need to be
adjudicated after respective evidence is led
by the parties before the trial court

13. On the basis of discussions made
herein above, this Court finds that there is
no illegality or infirmity in the summoning
order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the
concerned court below. Therefore, the
prayer
for
quashing
the
impugned
summoning order as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case are
refused, as I do not see any abuse of the
court's process at this pre-trial stage.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the
application is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 151
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6596 of 2023

Juvenile-X ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sushil Shukla, Sri Aditya Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468
& 471 - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section
- 18(3): - Application U/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned order as well as for a direction to
the learned magistrate to transferred the case
before Juvenile Justice Board - FIR, against
unknown persons - offence of cheating by
impersonation - investigation - Recovery -
charge-sheet
against
either
persons
-
cognizance drawn against all the accused
persons
-
Applicant
moved
regular
Bail
application claiming juvenile - court held that, -
at the time of commission of alleged offence
applicant was about 16 years old and he was
declared as juvenile by the order passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board and therefore the
magistrate concerned is directed to send the file
of the instant case to the Juvenile Justice
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Board/Children's Court having jurisdiction to try
the case against the applicant in terms of
section 18(3) of the Act, 2015 - accordingly,
application is allowed. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15)

Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Barun Chandra Thakur Vs Master Bholu & anr.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 870

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. I have heard Mr. Sushil Shukla &
Mr. Aditya Prakash Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash
the impugned order dated 03.02.2023
passed by learned ACJM, Khurja, District
Bulandshahar in connection with Criminal
Case No.3431 of 2016 arising out of Case
Crime No.483 of 2016, under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police
Station
Khurja
Nagar,
District
Bulandshahar and for a direction to the
learned Magistrate to comply with the
order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board, Bulandshshar so that trial of
the aforesaid case be transferred under
Section 18 (3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2015")
before the Children's Court/POCSO Court,
Bulandshahar having its jurisdiction.

3. In short, the facts in brief are that
on 30.06.2016, the opposite party no.2
lodged the FIR against unknown persons
alleging that on false promise of obtaining
NOC from Pollution Board, U.P. to run his
cold storage, the informant/opposite party
no.2 was duped of Rs.40 lakh by unknown
person, who asked him to make deposit the
said amount into some bank account, where
after the OSD of Hon'ble Chief Minister
was promised to help him. It is further
alleged that the informant/opposite party
no.2 issued three cheques, i.e., cheque
no.408173 dated 22.06.2016 amounting to
Rs.20 lakh, cheque no.408174 dated
22.06.2016 amounting to Rs.10 lakh and
cheque
no.408175
dated
24.06.2016
amounting to Rs.10 lakh. Total Rs. 40 lakh
has
been
deposited
by
the
informant/opposite party no.2 through
R.T.G.S. in the Account No.20321300148,
State Bank of India, C.O.G Bazar, Agra. It
is
further
alleged
that
when
the
informant/opposite party no.2 has inquired
about the said account, it was found that the
said account is opened in the name of
Narendra Singh s/o Anil Singh, House
No.144, New Abadi, Taj Nagri, Tajganj,
Agra Mobile No.8171978713. Since then
the informant/opposite party no.2 has
contacted several times but the accused
person has not responded. Thereafter, the
informant/opposite
party
no.2
has
approached the Samajwadi Karyalaya,
Lucknow and met one Ashish Yadav, who
has stated that he never called and some
one has duped his money naming his name.

4. After lodging the FIR, the aforesaid
matter
was
investigated
and
during
investigation it was found that in the
alleged commission of offence total eight
persons were involved. Co-accused Rahees
and other two co-accused persons including
the applicant were arrested on 24.07.2016
and from their joint possession Rs.5.5 Lacs
were
recovered. After
conclusion
of
investigation, the investigating officer has
submitted charge sheet on 10.09.2016
against all eight accused persons including
7 All. Juvenile-X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153
the applicant. Based upon charge sheet, the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate vide order dated 16.09.2016 has
taken cognizance and drawn criminal
proceeding against all the accused persons.
The applicant had moved regular bail
claiming juvenility, which was allowed
vide order dated 19.10.2016 till the Board
made functional and pending decision
regarding determination of age of the
applicant. Ultimately, the applicant was
declared
juvenile
vide
order
dated
18.05.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Bulandshahar.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the applicant was
declared
juvenile
vide
order
dated
18.05.2022 and at the time of commission
of alleged offence, the applicant was 16
years 9 months and 7 days and meaning
thereby the applicant was above 16 years
but less than 18 years. He has further
submitted that after declaring juvenile, the
guardian of applicant had moved an
application
dated
26.08.2022
before
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate Khurja, Bulandshahar praying
therein to separate the file of trial
proceedings of the instant case and send its
file before the court having jurisdiction to
try the case against the applicant but the
same was rejected vide impugned order
dated 03.02.2023. He has further submitted
that the order impugned is illegal and
continuation of trial proceedings of the
instant
case
against
the
applicant/delinquent juvenile any further
will be in violation of clear mandate of law
as given under Section 18 (3) of the Act,
2015. Leaned counsel for the applicant has
drawn the attention of the Court towards
the Annexure 11 of the affidavit filed in
support of application wherein the Principal
Magistrate vide letter dated 27.06.2022
requested the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate
order for sending the matter to the Juvenile
Justice Board, but instead of sending the
file to the Juvenile Justice Board, learned
Magistrate has passed the order impugned,
hence, this application.

6. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the applicant has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs.
Master Bholu and another, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 870.

7. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties.

9. Before proceeding to deal with the
submissions
advanced,
it
would
be
appropriate to refer the Sections 18 (3) and
19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015.

"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.

19. Powers of Children's Court.

(1)
After
the
receipt
of
preliminary assessment from the Board
under Section 15, the Childrens Court may
decide that-

(i) there is a need for trial of the
child as an adult as per the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial
subject to the provisions of this section and
section 21, considering the special needs of
the child, the tenets of fair trial and
maintaining a child friendly atmosphere;

(ii) there is no need for trial of the
child as an adult and may conduct an
inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with the provisions of
section 18.

(2) The Childrens Court shall
ensure that the final order, with regard to a
child in conflict with law, shall include an
individual care plan for the rehabilitation of
child, including follow up by the probation
officer or the District Child Protection Unit
or a social worker.

(3) The Childrens Court shall
ensure that the child who is found to be in
conflict with law is sent to a place of safety
till he attains the age of twenty-one years
and
thereafter,
the
person
shall
be
transferred to a jail:

Provided that the reformative
services including educational services,
skill development, alternative therapy such
as counselling, behaviour modification
therapy, and psychiatric support shall be
provided to the child during the period of
his stay in the place of safety.

(4) The Childrens Court shall
ensure that there is a periodic follow up
report every year by the probation officer
or the District Child Protection Unit or a
social worker, as required, to evaluate the
progress of the child in the place of safety
and to ensure that there is no ill-treatment
to the child in any form.

(5) The reports under sub-section
(4) shall be forwarded to the Childrens
Court for record and follow up, as may be
required."

10. As per terms of Section 18 (3) of
the Act, 2015, the Magistrate has no power
to retain the file after declaring the
applicant-accused as juvenile and the trial
of any accused/delinquent juvenile, who is
assessed to be tried as an adult, can only be
held before the Children's Court/ POCSO
Court in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Act,
2015.

11. But in the present case, the
accused-applicant was 16 years 9 months
and 7 days at the time of commission of
alleged
offence,
hence,
the
accusedapplicant was declared juvenile vide order
dated 18.05.2022 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board. After declaring the accusedapplicant
as
juvenile,
the
Principal
Magistrate has rightly requested the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to
pass appropriate order for sending the
matter
to
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board/Children's court, but the learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
without giving any heed, rejected the same
observing that as the file of the instant case
has been transferred to his court, therefore,
he
will
continue
to hold
the
trial
proceeding.

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur
(supra) has observed as under:

"81. We are conscious of the fact
that the power to make the preliminary
assessment is vested in the Board and also
the Children's Court under Sections 15 and
19 respectively. The Children's Court, on its
own, upon a matter being referred to under
Section 18(3), would still examine whether
the child is to be tried as an adult or not,
and if it would come to the conclusion that
the child was not to be tried as an adult
then it would itself conduct an inquiry as a
Board and pass appropriate orders under
Section 18. Thus, the power to carry out the
7 All. Bobby Anand @ Yogesh Anand Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
155
preliminary assessment rests with the
Board and the Children's Court. This Court
cannot
delve
upon
the
exercise
of
preliminary assessment. This Court will
only examine as to whether the preliminary
assessment has been carried out as required
under law or not. Even the High Court,
exercising revisionary power under Section
102, would test the decision of the Board or
the Children's Court with respect to its
legality or propriety only. In the present
case, the High Court has, after considering
limited material on record, arrived at a
conclusion
that
the
matter
required
reconsideration and for which, it has
remanded the matter to the Board with
further
directions
to
take
additional
evidence and also to afford adequate
opportunity to the child before taking a
fresh decision."

13. Perusal of letter of Principal
Magistrate dated 27.06.2022 clearly states
that after declaring the accused-applicant as
juvenile, he has requested the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to
pass appropriate order for sending the
matter to the Juvenile Justice Board and the
learned Magistrate ought to have complied
with requisition request dated 27.06.2022
wherein it was asked to transfer the file of
the instant case to the Juvenile Justice
Board so that Board may transfer the said
file to the Children's Court/POCSO Court
having jurisdiction to try such case against
the accused-applicant in terms of Section
18 (3) of the Act, 2015, but the learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
instead of sending the file to the Juvenile
Justice Board, has passed the order
impugned.

14. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid
down as discussed above, the present
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.02.2023 passed
by
learned
ACJM,
Khurja,
District
Bulandshahar is hereby set aside.

15. Consequently, the instant case
pending before the learned Magistrate
stands transferred to the Children's Court in
view of Section 18 (3) of Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Magistrate concerned is directed to
send the file of the instant case to the
Juvenile Justice Board/Children's Court
having jurisdiction to try the case against
the applicant in terms of Section 18 (3) of
the Act, 2015.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7631 of 2008

Bobby Anand @ Yogesh Anand ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, Sri A.P. Paul, Sri
Anil Tiwari (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rahul Chautrvedi, Sri Suresh
Chandra Pandey

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 200, 210, 210(1) & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 381,
420, 511 & 420 - Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881- Sections 118, 138, 139 &
142(2) - Application U/s 482 - for quashing
the entire criminal proceedings - FIR - which
was lodged by the opposite party as counter