X Juvenile Accused of Case Crime No. 100/2019 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

By means of the instant criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") the revisionist has impeached the order dated 02.07.2024, passed by the Session Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) (in short "Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 51/2024 in S.T. No. 162 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.100/2019, under Sections 302/307/147/149/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station-Mawai, District-Faizabad (Ayodhya) whereby the trial court has rejected the claim of juvanility of the present revisionist.

¶14

In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for the day.

¶15

List this case on 12.02.2026.

¶16

It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the counsel for the revisionist and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in the absence of counsel for the revisionist."

¶17

On 11.03.2026, this Court has passed the following orders:-

¶18

"1. Case is called out. No one appeared on behalf of revisionist to press the instant bail revision.

¶19

2. Considering the earlier order dated 06.02.2026 as also the elections of the Bar, case is adjourned for the day.

¶20

3. List/put up this case on 16.03.2026 amongst top 30 cases in terms of earlier order where this Court observed that "It is made clear that on the next dates of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the counsel for the revisionist and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in absence of the counsel for the revisionist."

¶21

Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. However, learned A.G.A. is present for State.

¶22

4 Considering the aforesaid, nature of the instant revision, issue involved in the instant revision and huge pendency of cases as also that the present revision has yet not been admitted as also taking note of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal

¶23

CRLR No. 840 of 2024

¶24

2

¶25

Kapur vs. Rajiv Thapar and others, (2007) 7 SCC 623, quoted hereinunder, this Court with the assistance of learned A.G.A. proceeded to decide the instant revision:

¶26

"4. The matter relates to administration of criminal justice. As held by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. Only on that ground the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶27

5. Thus in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed in default but should be decided on merits. If despite notice neither the appellant nor his counsel is present, the court should decide the appeal on merits. If the appellant is in jail the court can appoint a lawyer at State expense to assist it. This would equally apply to the respondent.

¶28

6. In Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848] the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar[AIR 1987 SC 1500 : 1987 Cri LJ 1856] in which it was held that a criminal appeal can be dismissed for default.

¶29

7. In Parasuram Patel v. State of Orissa [(1994) 4 SCC 664 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1320] the Supreme Court held that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default.

¶30

8. In our opinion the same reasoning applies to criminal revisions also, and hence a criminal revision cannot also be dismissed in default."

¶31

This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024, passed by the Session Judge Ayodhya (Faizabad) (in short 'trial court'), in Criminal Misc. Case No. 51/2024 arising out of S.T. No. 162 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 100 of 2019, under Sections 302/307/147/149/120B/34 IPC, Police Station-Mawai, District-Faizabad (Ayodhya).

¶32

The trial court rejected the application (3क) claiming the juvenility. The order dated 02.07.2024 reads as under:-

¶33

"िनस्तारण प्राथर्नापत्र प्रपत्र सं०-३ क :

¶34

आवेदक राम सुन्दर पुत्र अंगनू की और से प्राथर्नापत्र 3 क सत्र परीक्षण सं०-162/2020 सरकार बनाम वासदेव आिद, अपराध सं०-100/2019 अंतगर्त धारा 302, 307, 147, 149, 120B, 34 भा०द०सं० थाना मवई, िजला अयोध्या के मामले में प्रस्तुत करते हुए कथन िकया गया है िक आवेदक का पुत्र वासदेव प्रस्तुत मामले की घटना की ितिथ को िकशोर अपचारी था, िजसकी जन्मितिथ 03.05.2003 है। अतः न्यायिहत में आवेदक के पुत्र वासदेव को िकशोर अपचारी घोिषत िकया जाए। आवेदक की ओर से प्राथर्नापत्र उपरोक्त के साथ अिभयुक्त वासदेव का मदरसा इस्लािमया इनदािदया अिलयाबाद, िजला बाराबंकी द्वारा िनगर्त फामर् खािरजा (टी०सी०) की प्रितिलिप दािखल की गयी है।

¶35

िवद्वान िजला शासकीय अिधवक्ता द्वारा प्राथर्नापत्र का िवरोध िकया गया।

¶36

उभयपक्ष की ओर से उपिस्थत िवद्वान अिधवक्तागण के तकों को सुना गया एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों का पिरशीलन िकया गया।

¶37

आवेदक की ओर से पत्रावली पर अिभयुक्त वासदेव के सम्बन्ध में िनगर्त फामर् खािरजा (टी०सी०) की प्रितिलिप दािखल की गयी है। उक्त प्रपत्र में अंिकत िविभन्न प्रिवष् ों पर किटग/ओवरराईिटग की गयी है और कई प्रिविष्टयाँ पठनीय भी नहीं है। प्रथमदृष्ट्या उक्त. प्रपत्र अिभयुक्त वासदेव की ओर से वाद के िवचारण को िवलिम्बत करने के उद्देश्य से फजीर् रूप से स्वयं के हस्तलेख में तैयार कर दािखल िकया जाना पिरलिक्षत हो रहा है, िजस पर िवश्वास िकए जाने का कोई युिक्तयुक्त कारण नहीं है। ऐसी िस्थित में उक्त प्रपत्र के आधार पर अिभयुक्त यासदेव को घटना की ितिथ को िकशोर अपचारी माने जाने का कोई औिचत्य व आधार नहीं है। प्राथर्नापत्र आधारहीन होने के कारण िनरस्त होने योग्य है।

¶38

तदनुसार प्राथर्नापत्र 3 क िनरस्त िकया जाता है।"

¶39

This Court considered the impugned order dated 02.07.2024, quoted above, as also

¶40

CRLR No. 840 of 2024

¶41

3

¶42

the record available before this Court.

¶43

In the application (3क), the revisionist claimed the juvenility on the basis of 'Transfer Certificate' (in short 'T.C.') of 'Madarsa Islamia Imdadiya Alibad, DistrictBarabanki'.

¶44

The records indicates that trial court rejected the application (3क) after considering that on the document, i.e. T.C., relied upon for claiming juvenility, there were various over writings.

¶45

This Court considered that findings/observations with regard to over writings have not been impeached in the instant revision by placing appropriate evidence.

¶46

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the instant revision. It is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶47

March 16, 2026

¶48

Jyoti/-

¶49

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶50

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

X Juvenile Accused of Case Crime No. 100/2019 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile Accused of Case Crime No. 100/2019 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Chandani Thru. Her Next Friend /Husband Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian/Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Budhi @ Rizwan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Victim of Case Crime No. 191/2023 Thru. Concerned S.H.O. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others