Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8237 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1382 of 2019 Revisionist :- Satyaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar,Ashok Kumar Nigam,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Cr. Misc. Application No. 1300 of 2018 ( State Vs. Raghav Gurjar) whereby, custody of the victim had been given to Mr. Raghav Gurjar who is accused in Case Crime No. 412 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that admittedly, the victim had passed out High School examination and in her marksheet of High School examination, her date of birth had been recorded as 22.10.2003 therefore, on the date of passing the impugned order dated 8.1.2019, the victim was minor as such her custody could not have been handed over to the accused of the crime. It has further been contended that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and in the POCSO Act, the procedure for determination of age had been prescribed, wherein it is provided that if any person/ minor had passed out High School examination, his/her age shall be determined on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that in spite of there being High School marksheet of the victim wherein, her date of birth is recorded as 22.10.2003 and in spite she being minor, her custody had been handed over to the accused of the Case Crime No. 412 of 2018 therefore, the order impugned in this revision, on its face is illegal. 5. This Court takes note of the fact that the revisionist is the brother of the victim and on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 8.1.2019, the victim's date of birth in her High School marksheet was recorded as 22.10.2003 but in some other documents related to her education, her date of birth was recorded as 22.10.1999 and further she was subjected to medical examination and there her age was shown to be 18 years and on that basis, the trial court treated her as major and directed the concerned police station to allow the victim to live her life as per her wishes. This Court further takes note of the fact that the order impugned in this revision was passed on 8.1.2019 and today i.e. on the date of passing of this order, admittedly the victim had attained the age of majority even as per her date of birth recorded in her High School marksheet. 6. Looking into the fact that as on date, the victim had attained the age of majority even as per her date of birth recorded in the High School marksheet, a specific question was put by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist that if the impugned order dated 8.1.2019 is set aside, can a direction be issued by this Court to to the victim to live in the house of her brother i.e. the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist though tried to give reply to the aforesaid query but he could not dispute the fact that since as on date the victim had attained the age of majority even as per her date of birth recorded in her High School marksheet, then if this Court sets aside the order impugned in this revision, this Court can not issue a direction that the victim may go back to reside in the house of the revisionist. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist also could not dispute the fact that the victim herself had stated before the trial court that she is living with Mr. Raghav Gurjar i.e. the accused of the Case Crime No.412 of 2018. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that as on date, since the victim had attained the age of majority even as per her date of birth recorded in High School marksheet, it would not be possible for this Court to issue a direction that the victim may go back to live in the house of the revisionist. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court refrains from entering into the academic exercise, as to what procedure for determination of the age of the victim ought to have been adopted by the trial court. 9. In view of aforesaid reasons, this revision has lost its relevance, accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the legal issue of procedure for determination of the age of the victim. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad