The Allahabad High Court has held that an offence under Section 467 IPC (forgery of valuable security), which carries no minimum sentence, cannot be treated as a “heinous offence” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board had no authority to send a juvenile for trial as an adult in such a case.
Allowing a criminal revision filed by a juvenile, Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari quashed the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr and the Children’s Court that had kept the case before the Children’s Court. The Court remanded the matter to the Board for inquiry as a “serious offence”.
Background
The FIR was lodged on June 30, 2016 at Police Station Khurja Nagar, Bulandshahr, by Haji Rafeeq, owner of Altamash Pvt. Ltd., against unknown persons over alleged fraud and cheating of ₹40 lakh. A charge-sheet was later filed against several accused, including the revisionist, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
On May 10, 2022, the Board declared the revisionist a juvenile, aged 16 years, 9 months and 7 days on the date of the alleged offence. Treating the offence as heinous, it conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act and, on May 18, 2022, transferred the case for trial as an adult under Section 18(3).
After further litigation, including proceedings before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, the record went back to the Board. On July 20, 2023, the Board held that the offence was a serious offence and that it had jurisdiction. However, on May 11, 2026, it rejected the revisionist’s application for trial before it, holding that its May 18, 2022 order remained valid, binding and beyond its review powers. The Children’s Court dismissed the appeal on July 16, 2026.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla, assisted by Advocate Ankita Tiwari, appearing for the revisionist, relied on Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 787. He argued that Section 467 IPC does not prescribe a minimum sentence of seven years and therefore falls under “serious offences”. He submitted that preliminary assessment and transfer apply only to heinous offences, making the adult trial illegal and without jurisdiction.
AGA Ashutosh Srivastava, for the State, and Advocate Shyam Kishore Yadav, for opposite party No. 2, supported the impugned orders. They argued that the May 18, 2022 transfer order was never challenged and had attained finality, and that criminal courts, including the Board, have no power to review or recall their own orders.
Section 467 IPC Is a ‘Serious Offence’
Applying Shilpa Mittal, the Court noted that an offence with a maximum sentence above seven years but no minimum sentence must be treated as a serious offence until Parliament amends the law. It held that “since Section 467 IPC does not prescribe any minimum sentence of imprisonment, it does not fall within the definition of a ‘heinous offence’ under Section 2(33).”
Board Cannot Abdicate Jurisdiction
Relying on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla, the Court said that the bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to a genuine application for procedural recall, including cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction.
It held that “the Juvenile Justice Board had no statutory authority to invoke Section 15 or pass a transfer order under Section 18(3).” The Court observed: “Statutory jurisdiction can neither be created nor abdicated on the pretext of procedural constraints or an inability to recall an order.” It added that “An order passed by a court or board lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void ab initio.”
The Court also found that the Children’s Court erred in affirming its jurisdiction. Under Section 19(1)(ii), it should have conducted the inquiry as a Board, or alternatively, declined jurisdiction and returned the file to the Board under Section 9(2) of the Act read with Section 228(1)(a) CrPC (Section 251(1)(a) BNSS).
Outcome
The Court quashed the orders dated May 11, 2026 and July 16, 2026 and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr. The Board has been directed to proceed with the inquiry under the procedure for serious offences under Section 14 read with Section 18(1) of the Act, without subjecting the revisionist to any adult trial. The record is to be transmitted forthwith from the Children’s Court to the Board.
Case Title: Juvenile – X v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 4845 of 2026
Bench: Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari
Date: October 27, 2026
