RISHI PAL AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER CRIMINAL REVISION NO. - 3622 OF 2021:

DATE: 09/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Allahabad

BENCH: Justice Chawan Prakash

FACTS:

The case arose when Revisionist No. 1 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 06.04.2021, while he was away in his field, his daughter was enticed away by four named accused persons, Tinku, Sonu, Sanju, and Sugreev along with cash and ornaments. Later, the daughter was found lying unconscious near the house of one of the accused. Based on this report, a case was registered as Case Crime No. 279 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, the police found that the victim was a minor, as per her school certificate showing her date of birth as 01.03.2007. She was also found pregnant in her medical examination and was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Badaun.

Upon inquiry, the CWC learned that the victim had married Revisionist No. 2 and was living with him. Considering her minor status and pregnancy, the CWC handed over her custody to her father but simultaneously directed the police to register an FIR under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against the persons concerned. The revisionists challenged this direction, arguing that the CWC had no authority to order the registration of an FIR, as such power rests only with a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The State, however, defended the CWC’s action, maintaining that the direction was proper since the victim was a minor and the offence was cognizable.

ISSUES:

The central issue before the Court was whether the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has the legal authority to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offence, particularly in cases involving the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court held that the Child Welfare Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the police to register an FIR. It ruled that the Committee has no authority to issue such directions, as its powers are confined to ensuring the care, protection, and rehabilitation of children. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 of the CWC, Badaun, was set aside, and the revision was allowed.

The Court reasoned that under Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a Child Welfare Committee functions as a Bench and possesses powers equivalent to those of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class; however, these powers are limited to proceedings concerning children in need of care and protection. Section 30 of the Act enumerates the Committee’s functions, which focus on the welfare, rehabilitation, and safety of children. The statute nowhere grants the Committee the power to direct the registration of an FIR. Such authority is explicitly vested in Judicial Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who alone can order an investigation or registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is reported. Therefore, while the CWC may inform or forward a report to the police or Juvenile Justice Board regarding an offence, it cannot compel the police to initiate a case.

Further, the Court clarified that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 makes offences under it cognizable, but the procedure for registering an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. must still be followed. The role of the CWC is primarily protective and supervisory, not investigative or prosecutorial. In this case, the CWC, while acting upon its concern for the welfare of a minor who was found pregnant, overstepped its statutory powers by directing the registration of a case. Such an act went beyond its jurisdictional mandate. Therefore, the Court concluded that the CWC could only have forwarded the matter to the appropriate authorities for necessary action, not ordered the police to register an FIR. Consequently, the order was declared illegal and was set aside.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the clear demarcation between the protective and adjudicatory functions of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the investigative powers of the police or judiciary. While the CWC operates with powers similar to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, those powers are confined to ensuring the welfare, protection, and rehabilitation of children in need of care. The Committee’s primary role is not to initiate criminal proceedings but to safeguard the best interests of the child through appropriate rehabilitation or restoration measures. By directing the police to register an FIR under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the CWC blurred the boundaries between its administrative jurisdiction and the criminal investigation process, thereby exceeding its statutory mandate.

The Court’s ruling reinforces the procedural integrity of criminal law by reaffirming that the authority to order registration of an FIR lies exclusively with a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and not with quasi-judicial bodies like the CWC. This distinction is crucial to prevent administrative overreach and maintain the balance between welfare-oriented functions and criminal justice mechanisms. The judgment also reflects judicial sensitivity toward the protection of minors while ensuring that statutory bodies act strictly within their legal bounds. It serves as a guiding precedent to ensure that CWCs operate within their intended scope focusing on care and protection while leaving criminal investigation and prosecution to the appropriate legal authorities.