Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babulal S/O Badrinarayan B/C Kharwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 January, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6554/2018
1. Babulal S/o Badrinarayan B/c Kharwal, R/o Village
Harpatti, Tehsil Lawaan, District Dausa.
2. Lal Singh S/o Babulal B/c Kharwal, R/o Village Harpatti,
Tehsil Lawaan, District Dausa.
3. Sher Singh S/o Babulal B/c Kharwal, R/o Village Harpatti,
Tehsil Lawaan, District Dausa.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Bhagwan Sahai S/o Saanwtaram B/c Kharwal, R/o Village
Harpatti, Tehsil Lawaan, District Dausa.
3. Ramkaran S/o Motilal B/c Gurjar, R/o Village Maithna
District Alwar, Presently Posted As Head Constable No.14,
Police Station Lawaan, District Dausa.
4. Ravindra Kumar S/o Ranjeet B/c Jat, R/o Barela District
Jhunjhunu, Presently Posted As Sho, Police Station
Lawaan, District Dausa.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
02/01/2019 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 23/2018 titled as Bhagwan Sahai vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby order dated 11.1.2018 passed Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa was set aside and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 302, 120B, 217, 218 and 219 IPC, be set aside.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6554/2018] Briefly stated, the complainant Bhagwan Sahai on 12.9.2017 submitted a complaint to SHO, Police Station Lawaan stating therein that his son Ratan Singh aged 14 years had gone to school on 11.9.2017. He further alleged that his son had accompanied Bhim Singh son of Hari Singh and after school hours Bhim Singh came to his house and informed that Ratan Singh had not returned to school after recess.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigating agency found Bhim Singh to be delinquent juvenile in conflict with law and filed a charge-sheet against him. It is contended that the complainant being not satisfied filed an application in the concerned Juvenile Justice Board stating that since petitioners were also guilty of offences, hence, order of cognizance of offences be also passed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that concerned Juvenile Justice Board had declined the prayer of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that aggrieved against the same, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of concerned area Judicial Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised solitary argument that once application filed by the complainant on the same cause was dismissed by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, the complainant could not file the complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and thus, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa had rightly dismissed the complaint. It is submitted that the revisional court below erred to pass the order of cognizance.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') as per the preamble of the Act has been enacted only qua matters relating to children alleged to be in conflict with law or children in need of care and protection. So far petitioners are concerned, admittedly, they are more than 18 years of age and hence, cannot be termed as children under the definition of the Act. Therefore, they are to (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6554/2018] be treated and dealt with under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 4(2) of the Act to contend that Juvenile Justice Board also can exercise powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is true that Juvenile Justice Board exercise powers under Code of Criminal Procedure, but only in respect of children who are in conflict with law or in need of care and protection. So far persons who are not children are concerned, they are to be tried in regular manner as specified under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the complainant was justified to file the complaint against the petitioners and hence, the revisional court below was well within its powers to take cognizance of offences against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the complainant.
Except legal submission made above, no other argument has been raised qua the merits of the case. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present petition is dismissed.
Liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all arguments available to them before the trial court at appropriate stage including at the time of consideration of charges.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)