LAXMI NINGAPPA SARVAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 21/10/2024 passed by District Children Court at Haveri in Criminal Appeal no.115/2024 and order dtd. 10/6/2024 passed by Court of Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M./Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri in Halageri P.S. Crime no.57/2023 transferring case of petitioner to Children's Court at Haveri for trial, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) Sri S.P.Kandagal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was 17 years of age and apprehended on 6/4/2023 on a complaint filed by Devendragoud Gundagatti that complainant and petitioner were engaged to be married on 31/3/2023 and when they went to a park on outskirts of town on 6/4/2023, petitioner asked complainant to cover his eyes with his hands tied behind and then she attempted to murder him with knife. Complainant somehow managed to escape and lodged complaint. Based on complaint, Halageri Police Station had registered P.S.Crime no.57/2023 for offences punishable under Sec. 114, 342, 307, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. It was submitted that on 5/6/2023, petitioner was released on bail and on 27/10/2023, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter petitioner was to be assessed by Board under Sec. 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'Act'). It was submitted though none of offences alleged against petitioner qualified as 'heinous offences' defined under Sec. 2(33) of Act, Board passed impugned order on 10/6/2024 referring matter to Children's Court at Haveri for orders under Sec. 18(3) of Act. It was submitted, though questioned same in Criminal Appeal no.115/2024 before District Children's Court at Haveri, it came to be dismissed without proper consideration.

(3.) It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported in 2020 SC 405 had examined scope of assessment under Sec. 15, whether offences for which minimum punishment of 7 years was not prescribed would fall within definition of "heinous offences" and held in negative. It was further submitted, High Court of Bombay in case of Saurabh Jalinder Nangre and others v. State of Maharashtra through the Islampur Police Station, Sangli reported in 2008 SCC Online Bombay 6295 had specifically dealt with case of child in conflict with law against whom offence under Sec. 307 was alleged and held same would not fall within heinous offences. It was submitted ratio of decision was infact approved in Shilpa Mittal's case supra and same would squarely cover matter in issue. On said ground learned counsel sought for allowing revision petition.