Karnataka High Court
Atharva S/O Mahantesh Havalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009
CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100424 OF 2026
(482 OF CR.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
ATHARVA S/O. MAHANTESH HAVALLI,
AGE: 18 YEARS,
R/O. H.NO.938, MARUI NAGAR,
KUDACHI ROAD, BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
by MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALMATH
Location: High DHARWAD, THROUGH TILAKWADI P.S.,
Court of
Karnataka, BELAGAVI-590001.
Dharwad Bench
2. SMT. NEETA W/O. VINAYAK KUDATURAKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.78/2, KUDATURAKAR COMPOUND,
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590006,
NOW AT PLOT NO.C-2, 2ND PLOT,
ARIYAS APARTMENT, NEHRU ROAD,
TILAKWADI, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1.)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009
CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE, 1973 (SECTION 528 OF
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 AGAINST
PETITIONER/CICL NO.1, PASSED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
BOARD, BELAGAVI IN J.C.NO.39/2025, IN CRIME NO.0095/2025
OF MARKET P.S., BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(M), 70(2), 352,
351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(6) OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SECTION 4(2), 6, 8, 12,
17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 77 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 against petitioner/CICL No.1, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Belagavi, in J.C.No.39/2025, arising out of Crime No.0095/2025 of Market P.S., Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under sections 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(m), 70(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) read with section 3(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR 4(2), 6, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, by allowing this criminal petition.
2. The petitioner/accused No.1 is facing the charges for the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(m), 70(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) read with section 3(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 4(2), 6, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, as per the FIR. Since the petitioner/accused No.1 is found to be child in conflict with law ('CICL' for short) as per the provisions of law, therefore, he was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board had initiated proceedings making preliminary assessment of the accused. During the preliminary assessment the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days as on the date of alleged occurrence of offence. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has referred the petitioner to a psychiatrist/psychologist to examine the capacity of the petitioner to understand the worldly affairs and whether he is having capacity to understand the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR consequences of acts being done and for assessment of his mental status and accordingly the psychiatrist has reported to the Juvenile Justice Board that the CICL is found to be having capacity of understanding the maturity of the facts what are being done, therefore reported to the Juvenile Justice Board accordingly.
3. Based on this, the Juvenile Justice Board had referred though the physical age of the CICL is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days, but he is having mental capacity as if an adult and committed the offences alleged. Hence found him necessary to be tried by the Special Court as if an adult. Accordingly passed the impugned order referring the petitioner to be tried by the learned Special Court. This order is under challenge in this petition.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State and perused the materials placed before the Court.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days, therefore he is a child as per Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board but not by the Special Court. But the Juvenile Justice Board has referred the petitioner to be tried before the Special Court. Therefore, prays to set aside this order by allowing this criminal petition.
6. On the other hand, learned HCGP supported the order impugned and submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board is vested with power to make preliminary assessment whether the CICL is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Court or by the Special Court and the Juvenile Justice Board in its wisdom after making preliminary assessment has rightly referred the petitioner CICL to the Special Court for trial. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments from both the sides, the following point would arise for consideration.
-6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR Whether under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the preliminary assessment made by the Juvenile Justice Board, referring the petitioner to be tried by the Special Court as if trying as an adult upon considering his mental status, thus suffers from any perversity or illegality?
8. In the present case, the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months and 09 days. The case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused has committed sexual assault on a minor girl of aged 14 years. Therefore, the petitioner is foisted with the charges as above stated as registered in the FIR.
9. It is argued that since the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days, therefore, it is argued that he is CICL and hence he is to be tried before the Juvenile Justice Court, but not in the Special Court.
10. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012, defines the "child" as under:
2. Definitions.--(d) "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years;-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR
11. Here, the definition of age cannot be taken only as physical age but also the mental age on which the maturity level of understanding of child is also to be considered.
12. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('J.J.Act', for short) stipulates as follows:
15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.--(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence.
(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101:
Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14.
13. Therefore, where a child is facing trial for heinous offence when he is above the age of 16 years, then the Juvenile Justice Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to mental and physical capacity to commit such offence and ability to understand the consequences of the offence and circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence. Therefore, while determining the age of a child it is not only to be considered the physical age but also mental age is also to be considered. The assessment of mental age is to make -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR assessment of capacity to commit the offence and ability to understand the consequences of offence, under which circumstances he allegedly committed the offence. Therefore, the maturity level of the child is also to be assessed which is in co-ordination with the mental age. Therefore, Section 15 of the J.J.Act empowers the Juvenile Justice Board to make preliminary assessment. Accordingly when the petitioner was referred to Juvenile Justice Board and considering the fact that the age of the petitioner is found to be above the age of 16 years and was short to be 01 month 21 days to attain the age of 18 years, therefore the Juvenile Justice Board had proceeded to make preliminary assessment.
14. The Juvenile Justice Board not only for its self satisfaction but also in order to make objective satisfaction has referred the petitioner to psychiatrist and other experts to make assessment of mental age for understanding the consequences of his acts under which circumstances he has committed the offence alleged. Accordingly the psychiatrist
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR and also the invigilator have submitted report of assessment and according to their report, it is found that the petitioner is found to be having capacity to understand what is being done by him. Therefore, upon finding the same has referred the petitioner to the Special Court for trial.
15. Section 18 of the J.J.Act reads as under:
18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.--(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,--
(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian;
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR
(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
(c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board;
(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine: Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated;
(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and child's well- being for any period not exceeding three years;
(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and child's well- being for any period not exceeding three years;
(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home: Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the child's interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR place of safety. (2) If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the Board may, in addition pass orders to--
(i) attend school; or
(ii) attend a vocational training centre; or
(iii) attend a therapeutic centre; or
(iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or
(v) undergo a de-addiction programme. (3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.
16. As per sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the J.J.Act, where the Juvenile Justice Board after making preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the J.J.Act passes the order that there is need for trial of the child as an adult, then the Juvenile Justice Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court/Special Court having jurisdiction to try such offences. Therefore, after making preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009 CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026 HC-KAR J.J.Act, and found to be the petitioner to be tried as if an adult according to his mental status and understanding capacity of the worldly affairs and thus referred to the Special Court, as per sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the J.J.Act.
17. Here, the Children's Court is a Special Court as per definition of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and POCSO Act, 2012, has jurisdiction to try the case.
18. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is found to be legal, correct and valid and therefore having found no perversity or illegality in the order, the petition is found to be devoid of merits. Therefore, I answer the point for consideration in the negative. Accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT-AN / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25