Patna High CourtCR. REV./917/2017dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-12-03Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.917 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2014 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sunil Kumar, Son of Sri Nageshwar Singh, Resident of Village-Garsanda, Post-Kanchhiyana, P.s. Ramgarh, District-Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Arun kumar Vishwarkarma, Son of Sri Shankar Vishwarkarama, Resident of Village-Ratanpur, P.S. Gidhour, District-Jamui. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sri Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2018 This revision application has been filed against the order dated 25.5.2018 passed in G.R.No.479 of 2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhisarai rejecting the petition of the petitioner who is informant in G.R.No.479 of 2014 for determination of age on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate filed by the petitioner. It appears that earlier the Juvenile Justice Board had declared the O.P.No.2 as juvenile vide order dated 8.6.2015 passed in G.R.no.479 of 2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2015 and the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 8.4.2016 set aside the order dated 8.6.2015 of the Juvenile Justice Board and directed to consider the matter afresh and pass order in accordance with

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.917 of 2017(3) dt.03-12-2018 2/2 law as expeditiously as possible. It further appears that thereafter the Juvenile Justice Board again rejected the application of the petitioner, vide order dated 25.5.2017, which is under challenge in this revision application. In such view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner ought to have first moved in Criminal Appeal before the appropriate Court prior to filing this revision application in this Court.

Having heard both sides and in view of this facts and circumstances as stated above, this application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal if he so desires before an appropriate court.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T