Allahabad High Court
Shabab Beg vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34273 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4598 of 2018 Revisionist :- Shabab Beg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2519 of 2025 Applicant :- Shabab Beg @ Shavab Beg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anuj Bajpai,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shahid Ali Siddiqui, the learned counsel for revisionist/applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Anuj Bajpai, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 in aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Perused the record.
3. Criminal Revision No. 4598 of 2018 (Shabab Beg Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been filed by revisionist-Shabab Beg challenging the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-3, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2004 (State Vs. Shabab Beg and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2003, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Katra, District-Shahjahanpur whereby the prayer made by revisionist for re-determination of the age of accused/revisionist has been negated by court below.
4. Criminal Misc. Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 2519 of 2025 (Shabab Beg @ Shavab Beg Vs. State of U.P. and another) has been filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2004 (State Vs. Shabab Beg and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2003, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Katra, District-Shahjahanpur, whereby court below has negated the prayer made on behalf of applicant that either his trial be separated from other co-accused or the proceedings of the trial be stayed till the disposal of the aforementioned criminal revision bending before High Court was rejected by court below.
5. Record shows that the court below proceeded to get the age of revisionist/applicant determined. It accordingly directed the Chief Medical Officer to constitute a Medical Board and thereafter, get the age of revisionist/applicant determined medically. The said exercise was undertaken and a report dated 20.03.2006 was submitted wherein it was opined that the revisionist/applicant is aged about 20 years.
6. Subsequently, revisionist/applicant filed an application dated 02.12.2005 duly supported by an affidavit for re-declaration of himself as juvenile. The said application came to be rejected by court below vide order dated 12.12.2006.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by court below, revisionist approached this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2007 (Shabab Beg Vs. State of U.P.), which came to rejected vide order dated 17.01.2007. For ready reference the order dated 17.01.2007 is reproduced herein below:
" Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA as well as Sri Alok Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
A perusal of the order of the lower appellate court clearly indicates that the accused is trying to play dexterity with the Court. The accused claimed that he was born in the year 1987, however, he obtained the birth certificate in 2005 whereas the offence was committed in the year 2003. If the offence was committed in the year 2003, what was the necessity to obtain the birth certificate after a gap of two years of the incident.
The revision is meritless and is dismissed."
8. Irrespective of above orders dated 12.12.2006 and 17.01.2007, revisionist filed an application dated 26.11.2018 before court below praying therein that he be declared a juvenile. The said application was registered as Paper No. 311 Kha. Aforesaid application was duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the revisionist himself, which was registered as Paper No. 312 Kha.
9. The aforementioned application dated 26.11.2018 filed by revisionist/applicant before court below was opposed by the prosecution. Accordingly, an objection (Paper No. 313 Khaa) was filed by the first informant/opposite party-2 namely Km. Salina Ali @ Paro.
10. Court below upon perusal of the material on record came to the conclusion that aforementioned application filed by revisionist/applicant for declaring himself as a juvenile was not maintainable in view of previous adjudication already made. It accordingly vide order dated 01.12.2018, dismissed the application.
11. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2018, revisionist approached this Court by means of aforementioned Criminal Revision No. 4598 of 2018 (Shabab Deg Vs. State of U.P. and another.
12. Criminal Revision No. 4598 of 2018 (Shabab Beg Vs. State of U.P. and Another) came up for admission on 04.01.2019 and this Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Admit.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2., returnable at an early date.
Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List the matter after receipt of record.
Order Date :- 4.1.2019 "
13. Subsequently, the original trial court record was summoned. However, it appears that the same was returned to court below after obtaining a photocopy of the same. The basis of returning the original trial court record is clearly discernible from the office report dated 28.08.2024/11.02.2025. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein below:-
" Notice served personally upon O.P. No.-2 as per report of Ld. CJM, Shahjahanpur.
As per resolution dated 19.07.2023 placed at flag-(A) of the Hon'ble Committee for monitoring and expeditious disposal of Cr. Cases pending in the Hon'ble High Court, Original lower (trial) Court Record in the pending matter be returned to the Concerned District Court after keeping the photocopies.
The case is put up for order with trial Court Records (Photocopy)"
14. During pendency of trial, applicant filed an application (paper no. 33Kha) before court below duly supported by an affidavit (paper no. 34 Kha) praying therein that on account of pendency of criminal revision filed by applicant before High Court, the proceedings of the trial of applicant may be stayed or the trial of applicant be segregated from the trial of other co-accused. Aforementioned application came to be rejected by court below vide order dated 06.01.2025 on the ground that since no stay order has been passed by the High Court in criminal revision filed by revisionist, therefore, neither the proceedings of the trial are liable to be stayed against applicant nor any good ground exists to segregate the trial of revisionist.
16. Thus feeling aggrieved by above order dated 06.01.2025, applicant has now approached this Court by means of aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. Mr. Shahid Ali Siddiqui, the learned counsel for revisionist/applicant submits the orders impugned in present criminal revision and criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. With reference to the Juvenile Justice (Case and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 2007), he submits that the issue as to whether the revisionist/applicant is juvenile or not is required to be re-determined. To buttress his submission, he has referred to Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, 2007. For ready reference Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007 is reproduced herein-under:
" 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age.-- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i)the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;(ii)the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;(iii)the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.
(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.
18. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that irrespective of the fact that the age of revisionist/applicant already stands determined as per the report dated 23.02.2006 and also the fact that the claim of juvenality raised by the revisionist/applicant before court below was adjudicated upon against the revisionist/applicant vide orders dated 12.12.2006 and 17.01.2007, yet the claim of revisionist/applicant as a juvenile is required to be adjudicated afresh as per the mandate of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. On the above premise, he therefore submits that the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by court below is liable to be set aside by this Court. He further submits that in case the revision stands allowed, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also liable to be allowed. The trial of revisionist/applicant cannot be continued till the adjudication of the status of revisionist/applicant as to whether revisionist/applicant is a juvenile or not.
19. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Anuj Bajpai, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have vehemently opposed the criminal revision/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They submit that the orders impugned in aforementioned criminal revision as well as the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are perfectly just and legal. As such, the same are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. With reference to the record, it is urged that the issue regarding the age of revisionist/applicant stands determined in view of the directions issued by court below for getting the age of revisionist/applicant determined medically. Pursuant to the said direction, the medical report dated 20.03.2006 was submitted, wherein it was opined that the revisionist/applicant is aged about 20 years.
20. Court below upon receipt of the said report, proceeded against revisionist/applicant treating him not to be a juvenile. However, this action of the court below was not challenged by the revisionist/applicant at any stage.
21. It is then contended that subsequently revisionist/applicant filed an application dated 02.12.2005 with the prayer that he be declared a juvenile. The said application came to be rejected by court below vide order dated 12.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by court below, revisionist/applicant filed a criminal revision before this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2007. As such, the issue as to whether the revisionist/applicant is juvenile or not stands adjudicated up to this Court and therefore, same could not be have re-opened before court below.
22 On the above premise, it is thus urged that the application dated 26.11.2018 filed by revisionist/applicant before court below for seeking his declaration as a juvenile was not maintainable and therefore, the same has been rightly rejected by court below on the ground of maintainability. Learned A.G.A. representing State and the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 have then invited the attention of Court to the provisions contained in Rule 12 (6) of the Rules 2007 and with reference to the same, it is urged that only in such cases where the status of juvenality has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (3) of the Rules 2007, only then a fresh adjudication is required. There is nothing on record to show that the document relied upon by the revisionist/applicant qua his claim of juvenality i.e. birth certificate dated 29.11.2005 was ever filed before court below prior to the year 2018. It is for this reason that court below has disbelieved the said document. They submits that irrespective of the provisions contained in Rule (3) (A) of the Rules, 2007, even if any of the document mentioned in Sub-Rule 3 (a) (i) and 3 (a) (ii) of Rules, 2007 is present and the Court has reason to doubt the same, the court can get the age of the child determined medically. On the above premise, it is thus contended that no explanation has come forward from the revisionist/applicant as to why the registration of date of birth was supplied on 29.11.2002 even when the applicant was born on 07.08.1987. On the above conspectus, they therefore submit that no infirmity can be attached to the order dated 01.12.2018. Since the order dated 01.12.2018 is perfectly just and legal and there being no interim stay order passed by this Court against above order dated 01.12.2018, the court below has rightly concluded to proceed against revisionist/applicant. They therefore submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present criminal revision and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
23. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist/ applicant could not overcome the same.
24. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist/applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 in opposition to aforementioned criminal revision as well as the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist/applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the aforementioned criminal revision/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
25. As a result, aforementioned criminal revision and application under section 482 Cr.P.C. fail and are liable to be dismissed.
26. They are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025 YK