Blog

Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Case No: 3033 of 2024

Decided on: 7th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the case

A Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) is contesting a High Court ruling in this case. After the Board first denied the complainant’s application, there was a reexamination before the High Court, which made its decision based on the Board’s final opinion. Since the objections against the Board’s judgment were not taken into account in the contested order, the appellant is entitled to an appeal. Various difficulties led to the Board’s procedures being declared non-est, which prompted a challenge before the High Court. The High Court’s ruling, which was based on a misquoted part of the petition, is being examined. The mother’s application for the CCL was appropriately denied by the Board, highlighting the significance of the legal procedure. The Act’s Section 7(4) mandates the resolution of varying viewpoints within the Board, with the Principal Magistrate’s view taking precedence in some circumstances. The Board’s order was contested because the CCL was said to have committed major offenses, and the High Court overturned it.

Issues

1. Whether the notice issuance before challenging an award under Section 34?

Legal Provisions

Act of 2015, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children). The main sections that pertain to the case are as follows:

Section 15: This section deals with the initial determination of whether a minor in legal trouble, who is 16 years of age or older, should be tried as an adult or as a juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board shall pass an order following the preliminary assessment under Section 15 if the juvenile needs to be tried as an adult. The decision is based on the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the crime, understanding of the consequences, and the circumstances surrounding the offense. After then, the case files are sent to the Children’s Court, which has authority over them

Section 19: Should the preliminary evaluation indicate that it is necessary, this section permits an application to be made for the case to be transferred from the Juvenile Justice Board to the Children’s Court.

Section 14(3): It stipulates that the preliminary assessment under Section 15 must be completed within three months and is not required. The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may decide to extend the period of time for written justification.

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argues that the High Court’s ruling nullified the Board’s jurisdictional proceedings involving the CCL and that this does not call for intervention. Since the objections against the Board’s judgment were not taken into account in the contested order, the appellant is entitled to an appeal. The complainant challenged the High Court’s order by using revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C., focusing on the petition’s maintainability in light of the aforementioned sections. The Board appropriately denied the CCL’s mother’s application, emphasizing how crucial it is to carefully follow the legal procedure.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Children’s Court, Board rulings, and appeals are all covered in the records. The first document, which quotes rulings from the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta, highlights the need of providing notice before contesting an award under Section 34. The second document emphasizes how the Children’s Court may review orders under Section 19(1) and how Section 101(5) allows for appeals of orders. The distribution of a ruling among boards and judicial officers is mentioned in the final document. The fourth document also discusses the right of appeal and the conclusion of the Board’s operations.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Under Justice Rajesh Bindal’s bench, the Supreme Court of India heard an appeal involving a Child in Conflict with the Law (CCL). Sections 376(i) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as certain provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012, were allegedly violated by the CCL. Preliminary evaluation and social investigation reports led the Juvenile Justice Board to first rule that the CCL would be tried as an adult. But the Board disagreed with this ruling, which resulted in a dissenting opinion and an order requiring the CCL to be prosecuted as a juvenile. Later, the Karnataka High Court overturned the Board’s decision, which prompted the CCL to file an appeal with the High Court of Justice. The Supreme Court allowed permission to appeal, signaling that further research will be done on the matter to decide how best to proceed with the CCL’s trial. This case serves as a reminder of the difficulties in deciding how to proceed with a juvenile accused of a serious conduct and the multiple levels of judicial examination that are necessary to ensure justice and conformity to juvenile justice standards.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to read the judgement