AJAY KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gopal Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. M.K. Gautam, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Gagandeo Yadav, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of informant/opp. party No. 2. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.12.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2004 (arising out of Bisfi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2003) by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as "Addl. Sessions Judge"). By the said order, claim of juvenility, raised by the petitioner, was rejected.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that initially, the informant had filed a complaint, vide Complaint Case No. 504 of 2003 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani for offence under Sections 366, 360 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging therein that his minor daughter aged about 14 years had eloped with the petitioner. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and as such, an F.I.R., vide Bisfi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2003, was registered under Section 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, the petitioner was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody by order dated 2.6.2003. It has further been submitted that the petitioner filed a bail petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani and in the bail petition, a categorical statement was made that the petitioner was aged about 13 1/2 years. He further submits that due to inadvertence, the plea of juvenility could not be raised before the court below at earlier stage. However, subsequently, after prosecution evidence was closed, a petition was filed claiming juvenility. It was asserted that at the time of occurrence, which had allegedly occurred in the year 2003, the petitioner was juvenile. Alongwith the petition, the petitioner had enclosed a certificate, kept as Annexure '2', issued by the Head- master of Vidyapati High School, Bisfi (Madhubani) to show that the date-of-birth of the petitioner as 5.12.1989. Meaning thereby, that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 14 years. He submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, without conducting any proper enquiry, in a mechanical manner, has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner only on the objection raised by the prosecutor that such petition was filed only with a view to delay conclusion of the trial and that was filed at much belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. In support of his argument, he has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court, Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 3 PLJR(SC) 123. On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order.