Anuj Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anuj Chaturvedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interlocutory order only: quashing of the FIR and charge sheet not decided; learned A.G.A. directed to furnish complete instructions within ten days and the case listed afresh for 10.03.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the applicant having been aged about 16 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged incident, the procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Rules, 2016 ought to have been followed in the proceedings sought to be quashed (raised through learned counsel for the applicant). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Learned A.G.A. is directed to seek complete instructions in the matter within ten days; no substantive adjudication was made on the juvenility claim or on the maintainability objection at this stage.

Key takeaways

The case is to be listed on 10.03.2026 as fresh; the matter remains pending and the quashing prayer is undecided.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 25), single judge Amitabh Kumar Rai, J., decision dated February 20, 2026 — Application U/S 482 No. 1166 of 2026 by Anuj Chaturvedi under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 B.N.S.S.) seeking quashing of the First Information Report and charge sheet in Case Crime No.420 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhinga, District Shravasti, lodged on 16.08.2023. Applicant contends he was aged about 16 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged incident and that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with the Rules, 2016 should have been followed. Learned A.G.A. raises a preliminary objection that relief claimed by an applicant who claims himself juvenile could not have been filed in the applicant's own name. The court issued only interlocutory directions: the A.G.A. is to seek complete instructions within ten days and the case is listed fresh for 10.03.2026. No precedents cited; no substantive adjudication on juvenility or maintainability.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1166 of 2026

Anuj Chaturvedi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prashant Chaurasia, Vivek Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 25

HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 B.N.S.S.) has been filed for quashing the First Information Report along with charge sheet filed against the applicant in Case Crime No.420 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhinga, District Shravasti lodged on 16.08.2023.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was aged about 16 years and 9 months and as such the provisions as provided under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016 should have been followed.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned A.G.A. that the relief as claimed by the applicant, who has claimed himself juvenile, could not have been filed in his own name.

Learned A.G.A. is directed to seek complete instructions in the matter within ten days.

List this case on 10.03.2026 as fresh.

February 20, 2026 Mahesh

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench