MASOOD USMAN Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is claimed to be a juvenile and student studying in 10th class. As the petitioner is a juvenile, the petitioner has filed the petition through his natural guardian i.e., his father. It is stated that a false and frivolous case FIR No.137 of 2017 dtd. 11/6/2017 has been registered against the petitioner registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Police Post Bathindi for commission of offences under Sec. 379 RPC and the name of the petitioner did not figure in the said FIR. The allegations in the FIR are that the respondent no.3 filed an application for theft of his bike Pulsar 150 CC bearing no. PB06-AL-6681 of colour Black in the night of 9/6/2017 at around 10:00 pm including the documents from outside the Masjid at Umer Colony, Malik Market Jammu. It is further stated that the alleged occurrence was shown to have taken place on 9/6/2017 at around 10:00 pm and the FIR was lodged on 11/6/2017 at 08:36 pm. FIR was lodged after the lapse of two days and nothing was mentioned in the FIR that why it has been lodged after two days. Moreover, in the aforesaid FIR, the name of the petitioner did not figure and neither there is any allegation made out against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no. 3 filed an application before the Special Municipal Judicial Magistrate, on 15/6/2017 for release of Vehicle Pulsar 150 CC bearing no.PB06- AL-6681. In the application, respondent no.3 has specifically mentioned that the applicant (respondent no. 3) is in possession of all the relevant documents and vide order dtd. 20/6/2017 the said vehicle was released in favour of respondent no.3, who was applicant, on superdnama after retaining original Registration Certificate. It is stated that the petitioner has not done anything and he has been implicated in the false case, while in the aforesaid FIR, neither the name of the petitioner has been mentioned nor any act has been attributed towards the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has been implicated in a false and frivolous case and there is delay even in lodging the FIR and said delay has not been explained. Further that the FIR is also not sustainable on the ground that no ingredient of Sec. 379, has been complied with and there is no allegation against the petitioner as to the fact that petitioner has committed any offence of theft.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of by directing the police to complete the investigation and produce the challan before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, in case petitioner is found to be a juvenile by the concerned Investigating Officer after verifying his certificate and collecting evidence with regard to date of birth of petitioner. To this, State counsel has stated that he has no objection.