# Rishi Pal & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 862
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3622 of 2021
- **Bench:** Chawan Prakash
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishi-pal-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52735
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Child Welfare Committee is
empowered to direct the police to register an
F.I.R. or not

Head Notes
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006-Section 2; The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-
Sections 27 & 30; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 397/401 - The
Committee (CWC) functions as a Bench
and exercises powers equivalent to those
of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class
or Metropolitan Magistrate under the Code
of Criminal Procedure- These powers are
limited to proceedings concerning children
in need of care and protection. The powers
vested
in
the
Committee
are
both
administrative and judicial in nature and
are intended to be exercised solely for the
purpose of ensuring the care, protection,
rehabilitation, and best interest of the
child- Committee cannot exercise such
powers to direct the police to register a
First Information Report. (E-15)

Held-
The
Committee
has
exceeded
its
jurisdiction by issuing a direction to the police
for registration of a First Information Report.
Such direction is beyond the scope of its powers
and is, therefore, contrary to law and as such,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside-
Revision allowed.
(Para 16 & 17)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Child Welfare Committee; Cannot direct the
police for registration of a First Information
Report; Beyond the scope of its powers.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
30.11.2021
passed
by
the
Nyaypeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti, Badaun in Case
Crime No. 279 of 2021, under Sections 363,
354K(1)(1), 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO
Act, Police Station Dataganj, District Badaun.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sarvajeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A

## Text

862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 862
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3622 of 2021

Rishi Pal & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Sarjeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Child Welfare Committee is
empowered to direct the police to register an
F.I.R. or not

Head Notes
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006-Section 2; The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-
Sections 27 & 30; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 397/401 - The
Committee (CWC) functions as a Bench
and exercises powers equivalent to those
of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class
or Metropolitan Magistrate under the Code
of Criminal Procedure- These powers are
limited to proceedings concerning children
in need of care and protection. The powers
vested
in
the
Committee
are
both
administrative and judicial in nature and
are intended to be exercised solely for the
purpose of ensuring the care, protection,
rehabilitation, and best interest of the
child- Committee cannot exercise such
powers to direct the police to register a
First Information Report. (E-15)

Held-
The
Committee
has
exceeded
its
jurisdiction by issuing a direction to the police
for registration of a First Information Report.
Such direction is beyond the scope of its powers
and is, therefore, contrary to law and as such,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside-
Revision allowed.
(Para 16 & 17)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Child Welfare Committee; Cannot direct the
police for registration of a First Information
Report; Beyond the scope of its powers.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
30.11.2021
passed
by
the
Nyaypeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti, Badaun in Case
Crime No. 279 of 2021, under Sections 363,
354K(1)(1), 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO
Act, Police Station Dataganj, District Badaun.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sarvajeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sarvajeet Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionists and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed
for setting aside the impugned order dated
30.11.2021 passed by the Nyaypeeth Bal
Kalyan Samiti, Badaun in Case Crime No.
279
of
2021,
under
Sections
363,
354K(1)(1), 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8
POCSO Act, Police Station Dataganj,
District Badaun.

3. From the facts of the case, that
revisionist no.1 filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on
10 All. Rishi Pal & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
863
06.04.2021 at about 7:00 p.m., he went to
his field, leaving his daughter alone at
home, whereupon the named accused
persons Tinku, Sonu, Sanju and Sugreev, in
collusion, enticed away his daughter along
with cash and ornaments. Later, the
revisionist
found
his
daughter
lying
unconscious near the house of accused
Sugreev and took her back home. It is
evident that on the basis of tehrir given by
revisionist no.1, a case was registered
arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2021
under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and
Section 7/8 POCSO Act against the four
accused persons namely, Tinku, Sonu,
Sanju and Sugreev.

4.
During
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer found that the victim
was a minor on the basis of the school
certificate and accordingly produced her
before the Child Welfare Committee,
Badaun. The Committee, on perusal of the
medical examination report, found that the
victim was pregnant and that she had
entered into marriage with revisionist no. 2.
Thereafter, the Child Welfare Committee
directed the concerned police to lodge a
First
Information
Report
against
the
persons involved, for violation of the
provisions of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the
learned counsel for the revisionists that the
revisionist
no.1
lodged
the
First
Information Report upon the direction
given by the learned Magistrate on an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The case was registered against four named
accused persons, namely, Tinku, Sonu,
Sanju and Sugreev. The daughter of
revisionist no.1 was produced by the
Investigating Officer before the Child
Welfare Committee, Badaun. It is stated
that the Investigating Officer submitted
before the Committee that the date of birth
of the prosecutrix is 01.03.2007 and as per
the medical report, she was pregnant and
her age was about 17 years. The revisionist
no.1 thereafter moved an application
seeking custody of his daughter before the
Committee. Vide impugned order dated
30.11.2021, the Committee handed over the
custody of the child to her father but at the
same time directed the concerned police to
register a First Information Report against
the concerned persons under the provisions
of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006, as the age of the victim was below 18
years. It is further submitted that the
revisionist no.1 got the marriage of his
daughter solemnized with revisionist no.2
as per Hindu rites and customs and that the
age of his daughter was above 18 years at
the time of marriage. It is also contended
that the Child Welfare Committee has no
jurisdiction to direct the police to register
an F.I.R., and therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submits that during investigation the
Investigating
Officer
collected
the
educational certificate of the victim, in
which her date of birth mentioned as
01.03.2007 and at the time of incident
victim is aged about 14 years 8 months and
28 days, and during medical examination,
the victim was found pregnant and aged
about 17 years. The Committee, therefore,
rightly handed over her custody to her
father and directed the police to register a
case. Therefore, the Committee has not
committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order.

7. From the record, it appears that
revisionist no.1 filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on
06.04.2021 at about 7:00 p.m., he went to
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his field, leaving his daughter alone at
home, whereupon the named accused
persons Tinku, Sonu, Sanju and Sugreev, in
collusion, enticed away his daughter along
with Rs.20,000/- cash four bangles and
other ornaments. The revisionist No.1
found his daughter lying unconscious near
the house of accused Sugreev and took her
back home. Subsequently, a case was
registered as Case Crime No. 279 of 2021.
During investigation, the Investigating
Officer collected the victim's educational
record from Senior Secondary School,
Sapreda Dataganj, District Badaun, in
which her date of birth mentioned as
01.03.2007. During medical examination of
the victim the victim was found pregnant
and her age was also determined as of 17
years. The father (revisionist no.1) sought
custody of his daughter before the Child
Welfare Committee. The victim during
counselling before the Committee stated
that her parents had got her married to
revisionist no.2 (Rakesh). Considering the
age
of
victim
and
pregnancy,
the
Committee handed over her custody to her
father. The Committee, upon consideration,
found that the said marriage was in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,
and accordingly directed the S.H.O., Police
Station Dataganj, District Badaun to
register an F.I.R. under the said Act against
the concerned persons.
8. The main question that arises for
consideration before this Court is whether
the Child Welfare Committee (C.W.C.) is
empowered to direct the police to register
an F.I.R. or not. For determination of this
question, it is necessary to examine the
provisions of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006 and the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as the J.J. Act,
2015).
9. As per the Section 27 of the J.J.
Act, 2015, the State Government shall by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette
constitute for every district, one or more
Child Welfare Committees for exercising
the powers and to discharge the duties
conferred on such Committees in relation
to children in need of care and protection
under this Act. Sub-section (9) of Section
27 further provides that the Committee
shall function as a Bench and shall have the
powers conferred by the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a
Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may
be, a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

10.
The
functions
and
responsibilities
of
Committee
are
prescribed in Section 30 of the J.J. Act,
2015, which are as under:

 (i) taking cognizance of and
receiving the children produced before it;

 (ii) conducting inquiry on all
issues relating to and affecting the safety
and well-being of the children under this
Act;

 (iii) directing the Child Welfare
Officers or probation officers or District
Child Protection Unit or non-governmental
organisations
to
conduct
social
investigation and submit a report before
the Committee;

 (iv)
conducting
inquiry
for
declaring fit persons for care of children in
need of care and protection;

 (v) directing placement of a child
in foster care;

 (vi) ensuring care, protection,
appropriate rehabilitation or restoration of
10 All. Rishi Pal & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
865
children in need of care and protection,
based on the child's individual care plan
and passing necessary directions to parents
or guardians or fit persons or children's
homes or fit facility in this regard;

 (vii)
selecting
registered
institution for placement of each child
requiring institutional support, based on
the child's age, gender, disability and needs
and keeping in mind the available capacity
of the institution;

 (viii) conducting at least two
inspection visits per month of residential
facilities for children in need of care and
protection and recommending action for
improvement in quality of services to the
District Child Protection Unit and the State
Government;
 (ix) certifying the execution of the
surrender deed by the parents and ensuring
that they are given time to reconsider their
decision as well as making all efforts to
keep the family together;

 (x) ensuring that all efforts are
made for restoration of abandoned or lost
children to their families following due
process, as may be prescribed;

 (xi)
declaration
of
orphan,
abandoned and surrendered child as
legally free for adoption after due inquiry;

 (xii) taking suo motu cognizance
of cases and reaching out to children in
need of care and protection, who are not
produced before the Committee, provided
that such decision is taken by at least three
members;

 (xiii)
taking
action
for
rehabilitation of sexually abused children
who are reported as children in need of
care and protection to the Committee by
Special Juvenile Police Unit or local
police, as the case may be, under the
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012);

 (xiv) dealing with cases referred
by the Board under sub-section (2) of
section 17;

 (xv) co-ordinate with the police,
labour department and other agencies
involved in the care and protection of
children with support of the District Child
Protection Unit or the State Government;

 (xvi) in case of a complaint of
abuse of a child in any child care
institution, the Committee shall conduct an
inquiry and give directions to the police or
the District Child Protection Unit or labour
department or childline services, as the
case may be;
 (xvii) accessing appropriate legal
services for children;
 (xviii) such other functions and
responsibilities, as may be prescribed.

11. As per the concept and
responsibility of the Committee it is no
where stated that the C.W.C. can direct the
police for registration of an FIR in any
cognizable offence.

12. As per Section 2 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,
the relevant expressions are as under :
 (a) "child" means a person who,
if a male, has not completed twenty-one
years of age, and if a female, has not
completed eighteen years of age;

 (b) "child marriage" means a
marriage to which either of the contracting
parties is a child;
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (c)
"contracting
party",
in
relation to a marriage, means either of the
parties whose marriage is or is about to be
thereby solemnised;

13.
As
per
Section
15
of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
the offence committed under this Act is
cognizable offence.

14. Under Section 154 of the Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973,
every
information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence, if given orally to the
officer-in-charge of a police station, shall
be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction.

15. Under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C., any Magistrate empowered under
Section 190 of the Code may order an
investigation as mentioned above. As per
this section, if any person submits an
application
stating that
a
cognizable
offence has been committed and the police
have failed to register an FIR then such
person may file an application before the
learned Magistrate. Upon receiving such an
application, the Magistrate empowered
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. may direct the
concerned police officer to register an
F.I.R. This provision specifically vests the
power of directing registration of an F.I.R.
with the Judicial Magistrate, who is
empowered u/s 190 Cr.P.C.

16. Section 27(9) of the J.J. Act,
2015 provides that the Child Welfare
Committee (CWC) shall function as a
Bench and shall have the powers conferred
by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974) on a Metropolitan Magistrate
or, as the case may be, a Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class. It appears
that, relying upon the powers contemplated
under this sub-section, the Child Welfare
Committee directed the police to register a
case, considering that the offence alleged in
the present matter i.e., the violation of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is
a cognizable and non-bailable offence. In
the present case, the Committee (CWC)
functions as a Bench and exercises powers
equivalent to those of a Judicial Magistrate
of
the
First
Class
or
Metropolitan
Magistrate under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. However, these powers
are limited to proceedings concerning
children in need of care and protection. The
powers vested in the Committee are both
administrative and judicial in nature and
are intended to be exercised solely for the
purpose of ensuring the care, protection,
rehabilitation, and best interest of the child.
The Committee, therefore, cannot exercise
such powers to direct the police to register
a First Information Report.

17. On the basis of aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Child Welfare Committee
(CWC) is only empowered to forward a
report to the Juvenile Justice Board or to
the concerned police authority regarding
any violation of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage
Act,
2006.
However,
the
Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction by
issuing a direction to the police for
registration of a First Information Report.
Such direction, in the opinion of the Court,
is beyond the scope of its powers and is,
therefore, contrary to law and as such, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
18. In view of the discussion made
above, the instant revision is hereby
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
30.11.2021 passed by the Nyaypeeth Bal
Kalyan Samiti, Badaun regarding the
direction issued to the Police to lodge FIR
is,
hereby,
set
aside.
10 All. Ayush Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
867
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 867
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3690 of 2025

Ayush Shukla ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashish Tripathi, Sri Aushim Luthra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the preliminary assessment of the
revisionist was not conducted as per the
requirement of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 only proviso which mandates that the
Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other
experts for conducting preliminary assessment
into heinous offences committed by child by the
Board.

Head Notes
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015-Section 15; The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Sections
397/401-
Preliminary
assessments of juvenile under Section 15
of J.J. Act is a delicate and difficult task,
which requires expertise- It is being done
in arbitrary manner in absence of any
definite
parameters/
guidelines-
This
Court deems it appropriate to formulate
some guidelines for the Juvenile Justice
Board and Children's Court to guide them
in making preliminary assessment of
juveniles for the purpose of the trial
regarding commission of heinous offence
as per Section 15 of J.J. Act, 2015, till the
legislature
formulates
appropriate
guidelines - Guidelines issued by the court
to be followed by all the Juvenile Justice
Boards/ Children's courts while making
preliminary assessment of a child under
Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
it should be reflected in their ordersImpugned order set aside - Revision
allowed. (E-15)

Held- The report of the psychologist of the
nature mentioned hereinabove does not fulfils
the requirements of Section 15 of J.J. Act. It
appears that only to make formal compliance of
getting report from psychologist, the report was
called. The report does not records any finding
as to the revisionist was subjected to what kind
of test; what was his Emotional Intelligence
Quotient (EQ) or his Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.).
The Board has although recorded the finding
that the revisionist has criminal antecedents of
implication in two cases, but that cannot be the
sole ground for declaring him adult for the
purpose of trial regarding the heinous offence
wherein he has been implicated.
(Para 30, 34 & 35)

Case Law Cited
Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu,
Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022;Child in Conflict
with Law through his Mother Vs. State of
Karnatka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 798

List of Acts
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015; The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Section 15; The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Emotional
Intelligence Quotient (EQ); Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.);
Preliminary
assessment;
Guidelines
issued.

Case Arising From
Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Additional
and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Prayagraj, as well as order dated 04.12.2020
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj,
Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 arising out of Case
Crime No. 0463 of 2019 under Sections 147,