Dismissed¶16

X Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025CRLR/1506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Age of majority versus juvenile status at the time of the F.I.R. in a Sections 376/406/506 IPC case (Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur; S.T. No. 685/2023). Allahabad High Court criminal revision dismissed; Sessions Court order dated 16.01.2024 affirmed. Search keys: juvenile justice; date of birth 09.02.2002; birth certificate; High School Certificate; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement; consensual relationship 2019; forced physical relationship after victim's marriage; F.I.R. 11.06.2022; above 20 years of age; criminal law set in motion after majority; Siddharth J; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Criminal Revision 1506 of 2024; Saharanpur.

What did the court decide?

The relationship between the victim and the revisionist started with consent when the revisionist was admittedly only 17 years of age.

X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal law was set in motion against the revisionist while he was a minor/juvenile (claimed date of birth 09.02.2002), or only after he had attained majority, the F.I.R. having been lodged on 11.06.2022.

¶8

Court's answer

The relationship between the victim and the revisionist started with consent when the revisionist was admittedly only 17 years of age.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

After the victim became reluctant, and even after her marriage with some other boy, the revisionist followed her and entered into physical relationship by force; the victim accordingly lodged the F.I.R. against him on 11.06.2022, when he was above 20 years of age.

¶14

Key takeaways

The criminal law was set in motion against the revisionist only after he attained the age of an adult; it was not set in motion in 2019 while there was a consenting relationship between the victim and the revisionist.ratio¶14
This court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Court; the Sessions Court's order is affirmed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 1506 of 2024, 'X' Minor v. State of U.P. and Another, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Siddharth, J.), delivered 27.10.2025 - DISMISSED. The revision challenged the judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 685/2023 (State v. Shanu and others; Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, Sections 376, 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Behat). The father claimed the revisionist's date of birth as 09.02.2002 (birth certificate and High School Certificate); the victim's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded a consensual physical relationship from 2019, when he was about 17, lasting two years. Held: after the victim became reluctant and married another boy, the revisionist followed her and entered into physical relationship by force, and she lodged the F.I.R. on 11.06.2022 when he was above 20 years of age; therefore the criminal law was set in motion against him after he attained majority, not in 2019. This court found no illegality in the Sessions Court's order and affirmed it; the Criminal Revision was dismissed.

¶1

Reserved On:- 25.09.2025 Delivered On:- 27.10.2025

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1506 of 2024

¶3

X Minor		.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
In Chamber

¶4

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 'Bais', learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.

¶6

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 no one has turned up to oppose this revision.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1^st, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 685/2023, State Versus Shanu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, Under Sections- 376, 406, and 506 IPC, Police Station- Behat, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶8

An application was made by the father of the revisionist claiming that the date of birth of his son is 09.02.2002 as clear from his birth certificate and High School Certificate. The victim in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has stated that in the year 2019, the Juvenile and the victim made physical relationship with consent and at that time the revisionist was aged about 17 years. They remained in the relationship for 2 years.

¶9

The other side filed objection stating that the relationship between the revisionist and the victim continued upto 2021, starting from 2019. At

¶10

CRLR No. 1506 of 2024

¶11

¶12

the time of lodging of F.I.R on 11.06.2022, the age of the revisionist was 19 years. He came to her house on 29.05.2022 to take her forcibly from her house and was caught by the people of the locality and at that time he was aged 22. years, 4 months, 02 days.

¶13

The Sessions Court found that the offence alleged against the revisionist is of committing repeated offence of rape against the victim. Although started in the year 2019 but it continued till 11.06.2022 when the F.I.R. was lodged. On the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the revisionist was clearly major.

¶14

After hearing the rival submissions this court finds that the relationship between the victim and revisionist started with consent when admittedly the revisionist was only 17 years of age. Thereafter, it appears that the victim became reluctant to proceed with their relationship. However, even after her marriage with some other boy, the revisionist followed her and entered into physical relationship by force and hence the F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist by the victim on 11.06.2022 when he was above 20 years of age. Therefore, the criminal law was set in motion against the revisionist after he has attained the age of an adult. It was not set in motion in 2019 while there was consenting relationship between the victim and the revisionist.

¶15

Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Court. The order is affirmed.

¶16

The Criminal Revision is dismissed .

¶17

October 27, 2025 Rohit

¶18

(Siddharth,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. & Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of Up and 3 Others

X- Juvenile vs State of Up and 3 Others

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others