IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33270 of 2025 CHILD IN CONFLIC WITH LAW THROUGH ITS FATHER RANDEEP SINGH BHADORIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate along with Shri Shri R.K.

Shrivastava and Shri V.K. Jha - Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the complainant.

RESERVED ON :- 15/01/2026 DELIVERED ON :- 27/01/2026 ORDER The present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2025, whereby the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 638 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.138 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has been affirmed. Short facts of the case are that in Crime No.138 of 2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, vide order dated 19.03.2024, conducted a preliminary inquiry with respect to the juvenile in conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as ''the applicant'') and, extending the benefit of doubt, held him to be below 18 years of age as on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the prosecution as well as Vinod Kumar Jain preferred revision petitions, which were jointly decided by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2024. Vide order dated 12.07.2024, the Revisional Court had directed the Trial Court to conduct a fresh judicial inquiry, keeping in view all relevant aspects, and to arrive at a conclusion regarding age determination after affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. Pursuant thereto, in compliance with the said directions, the learned Trial Court conducted an age inquiry in respect of the applicant, Vishal Bhadoria, and after considering the evidence and arguments of both sides, passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 holding the applicant’s date of birth as 08.06.2005 to be correct and, consequently, found that the applicant was aged about 18 years and 09 months on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2024, and therefore, doesn't fall within the definition of a “child” under Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No.44 of 2025, which was also dismissed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind vide order dated 04.07.2025 and the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhind, was confirmed. Hence, the present petition.

Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Shri R.K. Shrivastava and Shri V.K. Jha - Advocates for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the learned Courts below after remand are wholly illegal and run contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as Section 94 of the Act of 2015 prescribes a complete statutory mechanism for presumption and determination of age and gives primacy to the date of birth recorded in school records or matriculation or equivalent certificates issued by the concerned examination Board and only in the absence of such documents can recourse be taken to a birth certificate issued by the local authority and thereafter, as a last resort, to medical age determination tests.

It was further submitted that both the Courts below have categorically recorded that the date of birth of the applicant as reflected in the school records from Class I to IV is 08.06.2005, whereas the applicant’s date of birth recorded from Class I to Cla