Reserved on 22.09.2025 Delivered on 15.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 928 of 2025 In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.4; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside cognizance order dated 01.01.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Basti including the charge-sheet and entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 I.P.C, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti. 3. The challenge has been made by the Juvenile revisionist to the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by J.J. Board Basti taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the revisionist. The Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Medical Examination of the injured was conducted after 13 days of the incident; The Medical Report of the injured was fabricated in 13 days only to falsely implicate the revisionist; opposite party no.4 himself is a criminal minded person; co-accused, Parasuram, has lodged an F.I.R. against the opposite party no.4 which was registered as Case Crime No.240 of 2021, under Section-323, 504, 352, 452, 427, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Lal Ganj, District Basti and hence the present F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist by the opposite party no.4; Co- accused Parasuram has lodged another F.I.R. against the family members Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhimanu Mishra, Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Indra Deo Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Dharnidhar Pandey, G.A. X Juvenile .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) of the opposite party no.4 earlier registered as Case Crime No.35 of 2019, under Section 336, 323, 452, 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Lalganj, District Basti and only to pressurize the revisionist, F.I.R. was lodged against him; independent witnesses have not supported the opposite party no.2 and filed their affidavits against him. The investigating officer has wrongly submitted the charge sheet against revisionist and cognizance thereon has been taken by the Court without application of mind, hence the cognizance order may be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel for the State and the opposite party no.2 have submitted that the offence alleged against the revisionist is fully made out from the material collected by the Investigating Officer and therefore, no interference is called in the cognizance order. 5. After considering the rival submissions this court finds that the cognizance order has been assailed before this Court on the basis of factual submissions, which can not be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board at the time of taking cognizance of the offence nor by the this Court at this stage 6. In view of the above legal position the revision preferred by the revisionist deserves to be dismissed 7. The above noted criminal revision is dismissed. 8. Office is directed to send trial court record within a week. October 15, 2025 Ruchi Agrahari CRLR No. 928 of 2025 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad