IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1075 of 2008 NAVLESH KUMAR @ LADDU @ NAVLESH MAHTO SON OF SHRI MANOHAR PRASAD, VILLAGE MURHENA, P.S. RAJAULI, DISTRICT NAWADA, AT PRESENT VILLAGE CHAMOTHA, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTRICT NAWADA ……. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA RANGE, PATNA 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAWADA 5. SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, RAJAULI 6. OFFICER INCHARGE, SIRDALA, DISTRICT NAWADA 7. ABHA DEVI WIFE OF BINOD MALAKAR, VILLAGE CHAMOTHA, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTRICT NAWADA …… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 7.7.2009 The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.8.2008 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Sirdala P.S.case No.73 of 2007 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the petitioner. By the said order dated 8.8.2008, charge sheet for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was filed against the petitioner and on the basis of the charge sheet, cognizance under the said offence was taken by the learned C.J.M. and the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. It appears that vide Annexure-1 F.I.R.No.73 of 2007 was lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. at Sirdala Police Station and the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 13 years in the F.I.R. itself. Vide Annexure-3, which is the order sheet of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya under Juvenile Case No.152(N)/2008 relating to Sirdala P.S.case No.73 of 2007, it appears that by order dated 30.9.2008 petitioner Navlesh - 2 - Kumar @ Laddu @ Navlesh Mahto, who was lodged in Remand Home, Gaya, was examined by the Board for ascertaining his age and his age was ascertained as 11 years 9 months and thus he was held to be a juvenile. Thus the petitioner-accused being a juvenile had to face an enquiry by the Board in connection with the offence and passing of an appropriate order after enquiry. The Juvenile, who has committed an offence, has to be dealt with by a Juvenile Justice Board only and that he cannot be tried by regular criminal court as an adult offender. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6, which is order dated 8.8.2008 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, who had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the petitioner on submission of charge sheet and after taking cognizance under the said offence transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist class for disposal. Thus by the order dated 8.8.2008 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dealt with the petitioner- accused as an adult accused and after taking cognizance of the offence he had sent him for trial/commitment to the court of a Judicial Magistrate Ist class. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges this order saying that this order is illegal. Inasmuch as the petitioner-accused being a juvenile cannot be tried as an adult offender and specially under the circumstances that the Juvenile Justice Board which has already held the petitioner- - 3 - accused juvenile. The order dated 8.8.2008 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate does not indicate that he was aware of the fact that the petitioner was a juvenile or that an enquiry by a Juvenile Justice Board was in progress with regard to the offence committed by the petitioner. In such view of the matters, this application is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner will file an application before the learned C.J.M, Nawada, who, on consideration of the facts will recall the case from the Judicial Magistrate Ist class and after taking into account the facts that the petitioner-accused has been held to be a juvenile by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board will send it to the concerned Board for proper adjudication. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Narendra/ ( C. M. Prasad, J. )