State of UP v. Farman Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Case No. 40 of 2022 (State of UP v. Farman Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah.

3. Leaned counsel for the revisionist submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2025, the Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Etah ignored the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, wherein it is provided that preliminary assessment shall be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board when a child is accused of heinous offence and at the time of occurrence of offence, the age of child was above 16 years so, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah has committed manifest illegality.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have perused the entire material available on record.

6. Sections 14 and 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are as under :- "14. Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law. - (1) Where a child alleged to be in conflict with law is produced before Board, the Board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may pass such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17 and 18 of this Act. (2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. 2 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 (3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three month from the date of first production of the child before the Board. (4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated: Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:- (a) at the time of initiating the inquiry, the Board shall satisfy itself that the child in conflict with law has not been subjected to any ill-treatment by the police or by any other person, including a lawyer or probation officer and take corrective steps in case of such ill-treatment; (b) in all cases under the Act, the proceedings shall be conducted in simple manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the child, against whom the proceedings have been instituted, is given child-friendly atmosphere during the proceedings; (c) every child brought before the Board shall be given the opportunity of being heard and participate in the inquiry; (d) cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (e) inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (f) inquiry of heinous offences,- (i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e); (ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 15.

15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board. (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18. Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. 3 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be [appealable] under sub-section (2) of section 101. Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14."

7. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 2(33) defines heinous offences, which is as under :- ""heinous offences" includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;"

8. In this case, the age of juvenile is determined by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and declared the opposite party no. 4 as a 'juvenile' and is aged about 17 years and proceed with the trial court. Thereafter, the revisionist has moved an application dated

27.10.2023 before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah by stating that crime committed by the juvenile delinquent is heinous so it is necessary in the interest of justice that trial may be conducted by the Special Judge, Exclusive, POCSO Act as per the rules. By impugned order dated 17.02.2025, application 22-b dated 27.10.2023 rejected by the court concerned with the following observations :- "उपरो्व स्थािपत िविध से यह स्प्ि है की यिद िकसी जघन्य अपराध के ्ऺकरण में िकशोर की आयु 16 वषर् से अिधक है तो बोडर् ्षारा जघन्य अपराधों में िकशोर का िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त िकशोर के अपराध के पिरणामों को समझने की योग्यता और वे पिरिस्थितयां, िजनमें अिभकिथत रूप में उसने अपराध िकया था के बारे में ्ऺारंिभक िनधार्रण करेगा तथा जहां ्ऺारंिभक िनधार्रण करने पर बोडर् का यह समाधान हो जाता है िक मामले का िनपटारा बोडर् ्षारा िकया जाना चािहए तो बोडर्, यथाशक्य, दंड ्ऺि्वया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) के अधीन समन मामले के िवचारण से संबंिधत ्ऺि्वया का अनुसरण करेगा। प्ऴावली में वतर्मान ्ऺकरण में बोडर् ्षारा िकशोर का िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त ्ऺारिम्भक िनधार्रण िकये िबना िकशोर का बयान अपचारी अंिकत कर िवचारण हेतु िनयत कर िदया गया है। इसके उपरान्त प्ऴावली साष्य हेतु भी िनयत कर दी गयी थी। इसके अितिर्व यह स्प्ि है की िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त बोडर् को अपने िकसी आदेश को िरकाल की शि्व नहीं ्ऺदान िक गयी है। अतएव ऐसी पिरिस्थित में वतर्मान ्ऺकरण में िकशोर का बयान अपचारी अंिकत होने के प्ाात उसका िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण ) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त ्ऺारिम्भक िनधार्रण नहीं िकया जा सकता। अतः उपरो्व तथ्यों व पिरिस्थितयों को दृि्िगत रखते वादी मुकदमा ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ 22 ब न्यायिहत में स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य नहीं है।"

9. Bare perusal of the Section, it reveals that if the said offence is heinous as per definition of Section 2 (33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the juvenile's age is above 16 years, the inquiry/ assessment must be conducted under Section 15(1) of the said Act.

10. In other words, in this case, the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, so it falls within the category of heinous offences and the opposite party no. 4 (juvenile) was aged about more than 16 years on the date of commission of offence so, it is required 4 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 to be dealt with as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act for the purpose of making preliminary assessment. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the Board has not conducted the preliminary assessment and by impugned order, rejected the application of the revisionist. The provision of Section 15 of the Act enables the Board to take the assistance of any experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts to make the preliminary assessment.

11. In view of the above facts and law discussed above, the instant criminal revision is liable to be allowed. The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Case No. 40 of 2022 (State of UP v. Farman Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board concerned for fresh consideration as per law stated above.

12. Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of. October 16, 2025 Rama Kant (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Case No. 40 of 2022 (State of UP v. Farman Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah.

3. Leaned counsel for the revisionist submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2025, the Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Etah ignored the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, wherein it is provided that preliminary assessment shall be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board when a child is accused of heinous offence and at the time of occurrence of offence, the age of child was above 16 years so, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah has committed manifest illegality.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have perused the entire material available on record.

6. Sections 14 and 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are as under :- "14. Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law. - (1) Where a child alleged to be in conflict with law is produced before Board, the Board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may pass such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17 and 18 of this Act. (2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. 2 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 (3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three month from the date of first production of the child before the Board. (4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated: Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:- (a) at the time of initiating the inquiry, the Board shall satisfy itself that the child in conflict with law has not been subjected to any ill-treatment by the police or by any other person, including a lawyer or probation officer and take corrective steps in case of such ill-treatment; (b) in all cases under the Act, the proceedings shall be conducted in simple manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the child, against whom the proceedings have been instituted, is given child-friendly atmosphere during the proceedings; (c) every child brought before the Board shall be given the opportunity of being heard and participate in the inquiry; (d) cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (e) inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (f) inquiry of heinous offences,- (i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e); (ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 15.

15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board. (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18. Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. 3 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be [appealable] under sub-section (2) of section 101. Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14."

7. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 2(33) defines heinous offences, which is as under :- ""heinous offences" includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;"

8. In this case, the age of juvenile is determined by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and declared the opposite party no. 4 as a 'juvenile' and is aged about 17 years and proceed with the trial court. Thereafter, the revisionist has moved an application dated

27.10.2023 before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah by stating that crime committed by the juvenile delinquent is heinous so it is necessary in the interest of justice that trial may be conducted by the Special Judge, Exclusive, POCSO Act as per the rules. By impugned order dated 17.02.2025, application 22-b dated 27.10.2023 rejected by the court concerned with the following observations :- "उपरो्व स्थािपत िविध से यह स्प्ि है की यिद िकसी जघन्य अपराध के ्ऺकरण में िकशोर की आयु 16 वषर् से अिधक है तो बोडर् ्षारा जघन्य अपराधों में िकशोर का िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त िकशोर के अपराध के पिरणामों को समझने की योग्यता और वे पिरिस्थितयां, िजनमें अिभकिथत रूप में उसने अपराध िकया था के बारे में ्ऺारंिभक िनधार्रण करेगा तथा जहां ्ऺारंिभक िनधार्रण करने पर बोडर् का यह समाधान हो जाता है िक मामले का िनपटारा बोडर् ्षारा िकया जाना चािहए तो बोडर्, यथाशक्य, दंड ्ऺि्वया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) के अधीन समन मामले के िवचारण से संबंिधत ्ऺि्वया का अनुसरण करेगा। प्ऴावली में वतर्मान ्ऺकरण में बोडर् ्षारा िकशोर का िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त ्ऺारिम्भक िनधार्रण िकये िबना िकशोर का बयान अपचारी अंिकत कर िवचारण हेतु िनयत कर िदया गया है। इसके उपरान्त प्ऴावली साष्य हेतु भी िनयत कर दी गयी थी। इसके अितिर्व यह स्प्ि है की िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण) अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त बोडर् को अपने िकसी आदेश को िरकाल की शि्व नहीं ्ऺदान िक गयी है। अतएव ऐसी पिरिस्थित में वतर्मान ्ऺकरण में िकशोर का बयान अपचारी अंिकत होने के प्ाात उसका िकशोर न्याय (बालकों की देख रेख संर्षण ) अिधिनयम की धारा-15 (1) के अन्तगर्त ्ऺारिम्भक िनधार्रण नहीं िकया जा सकता। अतः उपरो्व तथ्यों व पिरिस्थितयों को दृि्िगत रखते वादी मुकदमा ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ 22 ब न्यायिहत में स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य नहीं है।"

9. Bare perusal of the Section, it reveals that if the said offence is heinous as per definition of Section 2 (33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the juvenile's age is above 16 years, the inquiry/ assessment must be conducted under Section 15(1) of the said Act.

10. In other words, in this case, the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, so it falls within the category of heinous offences and the opposite party no. 4 (juvenile) was aged about more than 16 years on the date of commission of offence so, it is required 4 CRLR No. 2755 of 2025 to be dealt with as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act for the purpose of making preliminary assessment. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the Board has not conducted the preliminary assessment and by impugned order, rejected the application of the revisionist. The provision of Section 15 of the Act enables the Board to take the assistance of any experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts to make the preliminary assessment.

11. In view of the above facts and law discussed above, the instant criminal revision is liable to be allowed. The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Case No. 40 of 2022 (State of UP v. Farman Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board concerned for fresh consideration as per law stated above.

12. Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of. October 16, 2025 Rama Kant (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad