Karnataka High Court
Prashanth Alias Prakash S/O Fakiresh ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102448 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
PRASHANTH @ PRAKASH S/O. FAKIRESH HARIJAN,
AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. LABORER,
R/O. AT. POST. YALAVAGI SAVANUR,
TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE. 581110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR B. HALLI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PSI HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CIRCLE HAVERI SUB DIVISION,
TQ. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. SMT JUBEDA W/O. BASHIRHAMAD MAGHANOR,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
Digitally signed
R/O. AT. POST. NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
by J MAMATHA
TQ. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE. 581110.
Location: High
Court of
J Karnataka,
MAMATHA Dharwad
Date:
2023.02.07
14:19:26
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP FOR R1)
(BY SRI. A.R. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING AGAINST
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ARRIVED IN JC NO.24/2021 PENDING ON THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAVERI (WOMEN P.S. CRIME
NO.70/2020) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.363, 366, 376(2)
(n), OF IPC AND R/W SECTIONS 4, 6, 8 AND 12 OF THE PROTECTION
OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012.
-2-
CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022
THIS PETITION/APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Juvenile Court, Haveri in J.C. No.24/2021.
2. Petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO Act, for short) against a minor victim girl aged about 14 years 8 months. Initially charge sheet was filed before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri and later, in view of the notification issued by the High Court, the matter was transferred to FTSC-I, Haveri (Special Court for trial of cases filed under POCSO Act). As it was found that as on the date of the commission of the offence i.e.,15-16.11.2020, the accused was below 18 years, the learned Judge opined that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore the entire records were transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri to proceed in accordance with law and the matter is pending on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri, in JC No.24/2021.
-3-CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner being a minor aged below 18 years as on the date of commission of the offence, he was remanded to judicial custody without the authority of law and he has already spent about 11 months in judicial custody and therefore the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. He contends that the departmental enquiry was held against the investigation officer for filing charge sheet against the petitioner, who was a minor and in the said enquiry the concerned officers have been found guilty and the allegations against them have been proved. He contends that the petitioner being aged less than 18 years, the POCSO Act itself is not applicable against him and therefore even on the said ground the entire proceedings are vitiated and accordingly seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. It is not in dispute that initially the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge. At the same time it was argued that his date of birth is 20.03.2003 and therefore, he was aged about 17 years 7 months and 26 days as on the -4- CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022 date of alleged incident and he was a minor and hence the Court has no jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against him. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 27.10.2021 prima facie found that the petitioner was a minor aged below 18 years and therefore opined that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It was observed that due to the fault of investigation officer, the age of the juvenile in conflict with law was shown as 18 years as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, observing that it is for the Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri to consider and to proceed with the matter, the entire records were transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri to proceed in accordance with law.
5. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, FTSC-I, Haveri, the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri. The order sheet would reveal that an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (The Act, 2015 for short) was filed seeking release of the child in conflict with law. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order dated 16.12.2021 on certain conditions. Further, the Court secured the Probation Officer Report regarding the CCL and the Social Investigation Report, before passing the order. -5- CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022 Further the order sheet would also reveal that an order was passed under Section 15 of the Act, 2015.
6. The departmental enquiry conducted by the investigation officer and the result in the said departmental enquiry will no way come in the way of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which is now pending before the Juvenile Justice Court. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner is below 18 years, the offences under POCSO Act is not applicable also cannot be accepted. Under Section 19 of the Act, 2015, after receipt of the preliminary assessment from the Board under Section 15, Children's Court may decide as to whether a juvenile in conflict with law has to be tried as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pass appropriate orders subject to Section 21 of the said Act.
7. In the case on hand the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. Hence, the concerned Court has the power under Section 19 of the Act, 2015 to come to a conclusion after preliminary assessment, as to whether a child in conflict with law can be tried as an adult. If there is any procedural lapse in passing an order under -6- CRL.P No. 102448 of 2022 Section 19 of the Act, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the same.
8. No grounds are made out to quash the proceedings. For the forgoing reasons and with the above observations, the petition is dismissed.
9. I.A. No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8