HARIOM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 17.1.18 passed by the 5th ASJ, Bhind, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 275/17, whereby the learned ASJ has treated petitioner Hariom to be a major rejecting his application to treat him as a juvenile.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned ASJ has no jurisdiction to decide the aspect that whether the petitioner is a juvenile or not, and therefore, learned ASJ has acted beyond the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act of 2015"). Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 2(23) of the Act of 2015 to submit that Court means civil Court, which has jurisdiction in matters of adoption and guardianship and may include the District Court, Family Court and City Civil Courts, therefore, Sessions Court is not included in the definition of Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Act of 2015 wherein in sub-section 1 of Section 9 it has been mentioned that when a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately alongwith the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction. Placing reliance on Section 9 (1) of the Act of 2015, it is submitted that Magistrate was having no option but to forward the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board having jurisdiction to determine the age and that authority could not have been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge. Further reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 94(2) of the Act of 2015 which deals with presumption and determination of age and provides that in case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the provisions contained in Section 101(2) of the Act of 2015 and submitted that his valuable right of appeal has been curtailed inasmuch as the appeal against the order of the Board is to be filed before the Court of Sessions and there is no provision for any second appeal against the order of the Court of Sessions passed in appeal under the provisions of Section 101 (4), therefore, remedy of appeal has been curtailed by the indulgence of the Sessions Court venturing out to determine the age of the petitioner on its own.