A revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act is not maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 101 exists, and the order is not deemed 'Non-est'.

Judgment :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, learned Counsel for the side opposite, whose name inadvertently could not be mentioned when the order dated 12.03.2026 was reserved, Sri S.P.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the records.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the order dated 25.01.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'JJB'), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2014 under Sections 302, 201, 377 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Paliya, District-Kheri.

3. Learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability/entertainability of the present 'Revision' by stating that revisionist has bypassed the remedy of 'Appeal' provided under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and as such the present revision be dismissed with liberty to the revisionist to avail, the statutory remedy of 'Appeal' provided under Section 101 of the Act of 2015.

4. The availability of statutory remedy i.e filing of an 'Appeal' against the order under challenge dated 25.01.2023 passed by JJB Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201, 377 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Paliya, District-Kheri, has not been refuted.

5. It is stated that instant 'Revision' under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 is entertainable and maintainable, therefore, the order be passed on merits.

6.On the issue of entertainability and maintainability of the instant 'Revision', the reference has been made to paragraph no(s). 46 to 48 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Child in Conflict with Law through his mother Versus State of Karnataka and another , reported in(2024) 8 SCC 473. Paragraphs, referred, are extracted hereunder:-

"46. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that there being remedy of appeal available with the complainant against the order dated 12-4-2024 vide which two members of the Board had directed inquiry into the offence allegedly committed by CCL by the Board. In our opinion, even though such a remedy may be available to the complainant which should normally be availed, but what is evident from the facts of the case is that there was an earlier order passed by the Principal Magistrate on 5-4-2022, which was final regarding conduct of trial of CCL by the Children's Court, still subsequently two members of the Board without the Principal Magistrate being there passed an order on 12-4-2022 directing inquiry into the offence by the Board. In fact, the subsequent order was totally non est. Even if in such a situation the aforesaid order was not challenged by availing the remedy of appeal, in our opinion the revision under Section 102 of the Act cannot be said to be not maintainable.

47. Firstly, there is no time-limit provided for filing a revision therein, and secondly it could be on an application filed by any of the parties. The High Court can exercise its revisional powers for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Besides the legality of the order dated 12-4-2022, the case in hand is such where even the propriety of the proceeding was also in question. The proceedings before the Board could not continue after the passing of the order dated 5-4-2022, in terms of Section 7(4) of the Act.

48. Hence, non-availment of the remedy of appeal by the complainant in such a situation cannot be held to be fatal. We may also add here that even