IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 46 of 2008() ----------------------- CC.583/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED ----------------------- BIBIN(MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER K.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O JOSEPH, KALLOOR HOUSE, KOTTUVALLY, KAITHARAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.ANTONY SRI.K.J.JOSHUA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. NADEERA RASAQUE, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKEPRAM MURIYIL, REPRESENTED BY MOIDEEN, KALARIPARAMBIL, VANIYAKAD, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------- CRL.M.C. NO. 46 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated, 4th day of January 2008 O R D E R Petitioner who claims to be a minor is the accused in C.C. No. 583 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., North Paravur for an offence punishable under Sec. 427 I.P.C. instituted on a private complaint by the first respondent herein who is a lady. 2. The gist of the allegations in the private complaint is as follows:- The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the complainant to cut and remove the sunshade and the necessary portions of her building. But the petitioner and others demolished certain portions of her house in violation of the agreement and committed mischief causing a loss of Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner has thus committed an offence punishable under Sec. 427 I.P.C. 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.C. 583 of 2006 and consequent on CRL.M.C. NO. 46 OF 2008 -:2:- the summons having returned unserved; issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he is a minor aged 13 years and his date of birth is 5-10-1994 and since his is a juvenile, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence or proceeded against him. The petitioner has a further complaint that eventhough the complaint was purportedly filed by the first respondent Nadeera Rasaque it is signed by one Moideen on her behalf without any authorisation or power-of-attorney in his favour. 4. Admittedly, on a motion made by the petitioner's father to the effect that the petitioner is a minor, the learned magistrate has temporarily re-called the warrant. The question as to whether the petitioner is a juvenile or not is to be examined by the Magistrate. Hence, this Crl. M.C. is disposed of directing the J.F.M.F.C., North Paravur to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the above allegations. In case, the person who has signed the complaint has no authority to do so, the magistrate shall be free to dismiss the complaint. Even if the Magistrate is not inclined to dismiss the complaint, if the petitioner herein is shown to be a juvenile, then also the CRL.M.C. NO. 46 OF 2008 -:3:- Magistrate cannot proceed against him but can only forward the complaint to a juvenile Court for being dealt with under the Provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani