Allahabad High Court
X Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187420
Reserved On:- 25.09.2025 Delivered On:- 27.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1506 of 2024
X Minor
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 'Bais', learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.
-
Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 no one has turned up to oppose this revision.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 685/2023, State Versus Shanu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, Under Sections- 376, 406, and 506 IPC, Police Station- Behat, District- Saharanpur.
-
An application was made by the father of the revisionist claiming that the date of birth of his son is 09.02.2002 as clear from his birth certificate and High School Certificate. The victim in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has stated that in the year 2019, the Juvenile and the victim made physical relationship with consent and at that time the revisionist was aged about 17 years. They remained in the relationship for 2 years.
-
The other side filed objection stating that the relationship between the revisionist and the victim continued upto 2021, starting from 2019. At the time of lodging of F.I.R on 11.06.2022, the age of the revisionist was 19 years. He came to her house on 29.05.2022 to take her forcibly from her house and was caught by the people of the locality and at that time he was aged 22. years, 4 months, 02 days.
-
The Sessions Court found that the offence alleged against the revisionist is of committing repeated offence of rape against the victim. Although started in the year 2019 but it continued till 11.06.2022 when the F.I.R. was lodged. On the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the revisionist was clearly major.
-
After hearing the rival submissions this court finds that the relationship between the victim and revisionist started with consent when admittedly the revisionist was only 17 years of age. Thereafter, it appears that the victim became reluctant to proceed with their relationship. However, even after her marriage with some other boy, the revisionist followed her and entered into physical relationship by force and hence the F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist by the victim on 11.06.2022 when he was above 20 years of age. Therefore, the criminal law was set in motion against the revisionist after he has attained the age of an adult. It was not set in motion in 2019 while there was consenting relationship between the victim and the revisionist.
-
Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Court. The order is affirmed.
-
The Criminal Revision is dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 27, 2025
Rohit
