NIHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist Nihal and the learned AGA. The short question, at this stage, which is to be answered in the revision is whether the complainant-informant of the FIR should be heard in this revision or not. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.6.2011 an FIR was lodged with the police of P.S. Kotwali Pilibhit regarding an incident of murder which took place on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. The revisionist was named as an accused in the case. At a subsequent stage the revisionist took the plea that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident which was considered and his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his age. He was declared a juvenile. Thereafter a bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (for short the Act) was moved before the Board. After calling for a report from the District Probation Officer and after hearing both the parties the Board was of the view that it was not in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law to release him on bail and give him to the custody of his mother and therefore the application of the revisionist under Section 12 of the Act was rejected.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order an appeal under Section 52 of the Act was preferred before the Court of learned Sessions Judge which was ultimately disposed of by the learned additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the dismissal and earlier order of rejection the present revision has been filed. As mentioned above the sole question involved here is whether the informant/complainant of the case under Section 302 IPC namely Ramesh should be heard by this Court before disposing of this revision or not.