Lallan Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

Lallan Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Lallan Chauhan) was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident — as opposed to the date of lodging the FIR on 20.07.1994 — so as to be declared a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice law. +1 more

Court's answer

Per Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the age of the accused has to be seen on the date of the incident, not on the date of reporting the matter to the police (i.e., registration of the FIR).

Ratio / Principle

On the date of the incident the applicant was above 18 years of age: he was about 25 years old when the FIR was lodged on 20.07.1994, and opposite party no.2 remained with him for about five years after the marriage before leaving, placing the incident about five years prior to the FIR.

Key takeaways

This court finds no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 rejecting the applicant's juvenile declaration; accordingly the present application is rejected.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.), Order Date 12.5.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:76871 — Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 6056 of 2025 by Lallan Chauhan to quash the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau, in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2023 (arising out of case crime no.159 of 1994, under Sections-498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kopaganj), whereby his application to be declared juvenile was rejected. Held: applying Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the age of the accused is to be determined on the date of the incident and not on the date of registration of the FIR; since the applicant was about 25 years old on the date of lodging the FIR on 20.07.1994, and opposite party no.2 had remained with him for about five years after marriage before leaving, the applicant was above 18 years on the date of the incident. No illegality was found in the impugned order and the application was rejected.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76871

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6056 of 2025

Applicant :- Lallan Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmaveer Singh,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

Heard Sri Dharmaveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau, in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2023, arising out of case crime no.159 of 1994, under Sections-498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKopaganj, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that application of the applicant to declare him juvenile was erroneously rejected because it is an admitted case that marriage of the applicant was performed with the opposite party no.2, ten years before lodging of the FIR and she left the house after few days and court below on perusal of record found that on the date of lodging an FIR, the age of applicant was about 25 years. Therefore, on the date of incident, applicant was below 18 years.

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order because from the perusal of record, it is clear that the injured had left the house of the applicant after five years of the marriage. Therefore, on the

date of incident, applicant was about 20 years.

After hearing the submission of parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that opposite party no.2 in her statement has very clearly stated that though she married ten years back before lodging the FIR and she remained with the applicant for five years. This fact shows that if applicant was about 25 years on the date of lodging the FIR on 20.07.1994 then the applicant was above 18 years on the date of incident (about five year prior to F.I.R.).

As per Section 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it is clear that age of the accused has to be seen on the date of incident not on the date of reporting the matter to the police i.e. registration of an FIR.

In the present case from perusal of record, it is clear that on the date of incident, the applicant was above 18 years because on the date of lodging the FIR, applicant was about 25 years old. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the present application is rejected .

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 S.Chaurasia

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad