1 2025:CGHC:53122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1310 of 2025 Ankit Koshley S/o Shri Laxmidatt Koshley Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Student, R/o Village - Hirri, Near Bus Stand, Police Station - Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned Surname As Kosle) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Sarangarh, Sessions Division – Raigharh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under POCSO No.16/2025 whereby the application under Section 9 of the Juvenile PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.03 17:48:18 +0530 2 Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 filed by the applicant/Juvenile in conflict with law has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the on 18.06.2025, the police registered an FIR against the applicant based on a complaint made by the victim ( presently aged about 21 years). The victim stated that she is educated up to B.Com. The applicant obtained her mobile number in 2020 and began communicating with her from 20.10.2020, expressing love and a desire to marry. On 10.05.2021, when the victim was aged about 16 years, 8 months, and 26 days and the applicant was 17 years, 9 months, and 17 days, the applicant called the victim at midnight. The victim went to the field behind her house, where the applicant promised marriage and established physical relations with her. At that time, both were minors. The applicant later went to Kota, Rajasthan, for studies and returned in May 2023. Thereafter, the victim, after attaining majority, accompanied him to Raigarh, where they stayed at the house of a friend, and physical relations occurred again. Later, despite the victim insisting on marriage, the applicant refused. Between 10.05.2025 and 13.05.2025, the applicant and victim visited Vishakhapatnam and stayed in a hostel, where further physical relations occurred. On 18.05.2025, the victim lodged the FIR after the applicant left home. The police registered the case, completed the investigation, and filed the charge-sheet on 17.07.2025, followed by a supplementary charge-sheet on 24.08.2025 for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. On 30.08.2025, the applicant filed an application 3 before the learned Trial Court seeking transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred as JJB), claiming that he was a minor (DOB: 24.07.2003) at the time of the first incident (10.05.2021). He submitted his High School Certificate, Birth Certificate issued by SECL Nehru Centenary Hospital, Jachcha- Bachcha Raksha Card, and the Dakhil-Kharij Register of N.D.B.A. Higher Secondary School as proof. On 01.09.2025, the Trial Court rejected the application, holding that though the applicant was a minor at the time when first offence was committed by him on 2021, he had committed repeated offences after attaining majority. The Court then framed charges under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act on 02.09.2025. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 1130/2025, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 15.10.2025. Thereafter, on 11.09.2025, the applicant filed another application under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, seeking an inquiry into his age and requesting transfer of the case to the JJB. All supporting documents for date of birth were re-submitted. 3. The prosecution opposed the application, stating that the applicant continued repeated the offence after attaining majority (from May 2021 to May 2025). On 11.09.2025, the learned Trial Court again rejected the application, holding that since the applicant committed offences after becoming a major, he could not claim juvenile status. The applicant contends that the Trial Court failed to properly consider that the first incident occurred when he was a minor. The 4 victim was also a major at the time of subsequent alleged incidents and lodged the complaint at the age of 20. The Trial Court wrongly applied two separate legal frameworks, violating Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The application under Section 9 of the JJ Act cited relevant Supreme Court and High Court precedents that were ignored. The applicant also filed an application under Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking a stay on trial proceedings until the decision of the pending revision. The application was partly considered, and the case was fixed for further evidence on 27th, 28th, and 29th October 2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and hence liable to be set aside. As per the FIR and the prosecution documents, the first alleged incident occurred on 10.05.2021, when the applicant was below 18 years of age. The matriculation certificate clearly records his date of birth as 24.07.2003, establishing that he was 17 years, 9 months, and 16 days old at the time of the incident. Despite this, the learned Trial Court failed to consider his minority while it considered the victim’s age from the same initial date of incident. The Court thus committed a gross illegality by applying two different standards of law in the same case. He further submits that by May 2023 and May 2025, both the applicant and the victim had attained the age of majority. The learned Trial Court, however, rejected the applicant’s claim under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, solely on the ground that the applicant 5 committed subsequent acts after attaining majority, while failing to consider that the victim was also an adult at those times. Such reasoning violates the principle of equality under Article 15 of the Constitution of India and the uniform application of law. 5. He also submits that the applicant had filed the various documents to substantiate his date of birth (24.07.2003)- High School Certificate, Jachcha–Bachcha Raksha Card, Birth Certificate issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Nehru Centenary Hospital, Gevra, District Korba, and Dakhil-Kharij Register of N.D.B.A. Higher Secondary School, Suwatal, Block Sarangarh (erstwhile District Raigarh, C.G.). These documents conclusively establish that the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the first incident dated 10.05.2021. The applicant initially filed an application for transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Subsequently, a proper and duly constituted application under Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 was filed, along with relevant judgments and citations. However, the learned Trial Court rejected it without assigning cogent reasons or discussing the judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant. In view of the applicant’s age on the date of the first incident (10.05.2021), only the Juvenile Justice Board has jurisdiction to conduct inquiry and trial. The present Court lacks jurisdiction to continue the prosecution against a person who was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence. He further submits that under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this Hon’ble Court is empowered and duty- bound to conduct an age inquiry, call for original records from the 6 concerned authorities, and record statements of relevant witnesses for determining the age of the applicant as on 10.05.2021. The Constitution of India, the POCSO Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are equally applicable to all persons whether a victim (child) or a juvenile in conflict with law (child). The learned Trial Court failed to uphold this equality and fairness in law. The applicant is relying upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts i.e. Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P and Others (2022) 8 SCC 602, Karan @ Fatiya v. State of M.P., (2023) 5 SCC 504, Omprakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 4229/2024, decided on 08.01.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, the applicant respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the case be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Trial Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that on 30.08.2025, an application was filed on behalf of the 7 accused/applicant, stating that his date of birth is 24.07.2003, and on the basis that he was a minor on the initial date of the incident, i.e., on 10.05.2021, a prayer was made to refer the case to the JJB for trial. Along with the said application, the accused submitted copies of documents in support of his date of birth being 24.07.2003, including the Admission Withdrawal Register of the Higher Secondary School, the Jachcha-Bachcha Card, and the Birth Certificate issued by the hospital. It is further noted that in the charge-sheet, the date of birth of the accused was also mentioned as 24.07.2003, which was not disputed by the prosecution. However, it is significant that the accused/applicant, even after attaining majority, continuously committed the offence of rape upon the victim up to 13.05.2025. Considering that the accused/applicant sought referral of his case to the JJB on the basis of his date of birth being 24.07.2003 and his minority on the date of the incident (10.05.2021), both parties were given an opportunity of hearing. After examining the matter on merits, the said application was rejected and dismissed by order dated 01.09.2025. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, the application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Trial 8 Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 10. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti