Reserved On:-26.08.2025 Delivered On:-11.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 157 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Heard Shri Bhanu Tiwari holding brief of Shri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist;Mohd. Zeeshan holding brief of Shri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.a. and perused the record. 2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Basti, in Criminal Case No. 35/2023 and order dated 04.11.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Basti, in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2024 (Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of case crime no. 273 of 2022, under section 376, 313 IPC, Police Station- Gaur, District- Basti. 3. Vide order dated 29.06.2023 the appellate court has refused to set aside the cognizance order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti, taking cognizance of the offence against the revisionist under section 376/313 IPC in case crime no. 273 of 2022, Police Station- Gaur, District- Basti. 4. The allegations against the revisionist in short is that he befriended the victim, promised her to marry after two years since elder brother of the revisionist was not married. Thereafter, he committed her physical and mental exploitation. When she became pregnant, he gave her medicine which resulted in her abortion and, thereafter, he has refused to marry the victim stating that she belongs to caste "teli" while he belongs to caste "sonaar". He offered her money instead of marrying her and threatened her to make their intimate video viral. 5. The investigating officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet under section 376/313 IPC before the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti, where the cognizance was taken by the Board on 29.06.2023. The aforesaid order dated 29.06.2023 was subjected to appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court found that at the time of taking cognizance on their offence, the court is required to consider the only averments made Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Yadav X Juvenile .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) in the complaint or the material filed alongwith charge-sheet. The court cannot appreciate the evidence at the stage of cognizance and come to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenging the aforesaid orders relying upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2019); Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2019 195 AIC 72 and Kunal Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765, and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments the cognizance order passed against the revisionist are not in accordance with law. 7. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions on the ground that at the stage of cognizance, without any other evidence on record accept the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, the court cannot decided whether to proceed with the trial or not. The cognizance order is in accordance with law. 8. After considering the rival submissions and material on record, this Court finds that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the revisionist are not relevant. All the judgments placed before this Court are of final nature passed after elaborate trial. In none of the judgments, relied by the counsel for the revisionist, the Apex Court has held that the implication of the accused was wrong and, therefore, the cognizance order was bad. All the judgements are post trial judgments wherein evidence on record has been considered and, thereafter, the accused was exonerated. 9. The judgments have no application to the present dispute. The orders passed by the courts below are hereby affirmed. 10. The revision is dismissed. 11. Let the trial court record be returned and this order be also notified to the appellate court within a week by the office. September 11, 2025 Abhishek CRLR No. 157 of 2025 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad