Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chawan Prakash, J.
Rishi Pal and Another – Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 3622 of 2021
Decided On : 09-10-2025
For the Revisionist : Sarvajeet Singh
For the Opposite Party : G.A.
The Child Welfare Committee lacks authority to direct police to register an FIR in violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
Headnote:(A) Sections 363, 354K(1)(1), 323 IPC; Section 7/8 POCSO Act; Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Child Welfare Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the police to register an FIR. The committee’s powers are confined to actions regarding children's care and protection. (Paras 8, 16, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction of CWC - The CWC does not have the authority to direct police to lodge FIR, as this power resides with the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist filed a report alleging his daughter was enticed away by named accused. Victim was found unconscious and subsequently, a case was initiated under IPC and POCSO. The CWC ordered FIR registration due to child marriage violation, leading to judicial scrutiny.
Findings of Court:
CWC exceeded its jurisdiction by directing FIR registration instead of forwarding a report to proper authorities.
Issues: Whether the CWC can direct police to register FIR or not.
Ratio Decidendi: Court concludes that the direction to police by the CWC was ultra vires and thus overturned.
Result: Revision allowed, impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention and custody issues due to alleged child marriage. (Para 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. cwc's powers and limitations regarding fir direction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal framework regarding jurisdiction and cognizable offences. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Chawan Prakash, J.
1. Heard Sri Sarvajeet Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant revision has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Nyaypeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti, Badaun in Case Crime No. 279 of 2021, under Sections 363, 354K(1)(1), 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Dataganj, District Badaun.
3. From the facts of the case, that revisionist no.1 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C . stating that on 06.04.2021 at about 7:00 p.m., he went to his field, leaving his daughter alone at home, whereupon the named accused persons Tinku, Sonu, Sanju and Sugreev, in collusion, enticed away his daughter along with cash and ornaments. Later, the revisionist found his daughter lying unconscious near the house of accused Sugreev and took her back home. It is evident that on the basis of tehrir given by revisionist no.1, a case was registered arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act against the four accused persons namely, Tinku, Sonu, Sanju and Sugreev.
4. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the victim was a minor on the basis of the school certificate and accordingly produced her before the Child Welfare Committee, Badaun. The Committee, on perusal of the medical examination report, found that the victim was pregnant and that she had entered into marriage with revisionist no. 2. Thereafter, the Child Welfare Committee directed the concerned police to lodge a First Information Report against the persons involved, for violation of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 .
5. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionist no.1 lodged the First Information Report upon the direction given by the learned Magistrate on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C . The case was registered against four named accused persons, namely, Tinku, Sonu, Sanju and Sugreev. The daughter of revisionist no.1 was produced by the Investigating Officer before the Child Welfare Committee, Badaun. It is stated that the Investigating Officer submitted before the Committee that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.03.2007 and as per the medical report, she was pregnant and her age was about 17 years. The revisionist no.1 thereafter moved an application seeking custody of his daughter before the Committee. Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2021, the Committee handed over the custody of the child to her father but at the same time directed the concerned police to register a First Information Report against the concerned persons under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 , as the age of the victim was below 18 years. It is further submitted that the revisionist no.1 got the marriage of his daughter solemnized with revisionist no.2 as per Hindu rites and customs and that the age of his daughter was above 18 years at the time of marriage. It is also contended that the Child Welfare Committee has no jurisdiction to direct the police to register an F.I.R., and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that during investigation the Investigating Officer collected the educational certificate of the victim, in which her date of birth mentioned as 01.03.2007 and at the time of incident victim is aged about 14 years 8 months and 28 days, and during medical examination, the victim was found pregnant and aged about 17 years. The Committee, therefore, rightly handed over her custody to her father and directed the police to register a case. Therefore, the Committee has
