R. JAYALAKSHMI Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, MADRAS HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for in this writ petitioner is for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the enquiry, insofar as the petitioner's son Sasi Kumar, A-3 in Crime No.138 of 2005, is concerned and consequently direct the first respondent to initiate departmental action against the second respondent for his failure to transfer the case of the petitioner's son in Crime No.138 of 2005, which is pending before the forth respondent, to the Juvenile Justice Board, the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, who is the competent authority to try the same.

(2.) The short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner filed a bail application for her son on 17.03.2005, along with a memo stating that the petitioner's son, who was accused No.3 in Crime No.138 of 2005, was under 18 years of age, therefore since he was a Juvenile, he has to be tried by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'). However, the learned Magistrate without considering the said plea of the petitioner, simply ordered notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor and adjourned the case on various dates in March, 2005.

(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, her son, A3 in that case, was a juvenile and therefore, she requested the learned Magistrate to enlarge him on bail and transfer his case to the Juvenile Justice Board. However, the second respondent had informed that he would consider the bail petition, only if the case is tried before him. Therefore it is the claim of the petitioner that, she was directed to withdraw the memo, which had stated that her son Sasikumar was a Juvenile. Accordingly, she withdrawn the said memo, otherwise, the bail petition would not have been considered. Thereafter on 23.03.2005, the accused was enlarged on bail with a condition to appear before the Chengalpet Police Station twice in a day. Thereafter on 04.04.2005, the petitioner submitted a memo before the second respondent, who was the presiding over the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai stating that the accused was only 17 years old at the time of commission of offence and therefore, the accused should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and hence she requested to transfer the same. However, the said Court did not accept the request made by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner having no other option, except to approach this Court, by way of filing this writ petition with the above said prayer seeking Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the third respondent from proceedings further in the said case, pending before him.