HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5885 OF 2009 DATE:09-09-2011 BETWEEN: Kotaru Kondal Rao. - - - Petitioner/ A-2. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5885 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/A-2 (For short, ‘A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Juvenile Calender Case No.8 of 2008, pending on the file of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate-Juvenile Court, Guntur. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-2, the Respondent No.1 is the Complainant in the Juvenile Calender Case No.8 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Juvenile Calender Case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for A-2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent - State. 4. The prosecution case is as follows : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli, filed charge sheet on 04-12-2003 against A-1 to A-7 in that Crime No.67 of 2003 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, where it was numbered as P.R.C. No.49 of 2003. Later, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur Division and then it was numbered as S.C. No.103 of 2004 and later it was made over to the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur. Further, the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur, separated the case against A-2 vide orders passed in Crl.M.P. No.409 of 2007, dated 05-11-2007, on the ground that A-2 happened to be a juvenile and as such he should be tried by a Juvenile Court. Subsequently, it was sent to the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, which got jurisdiction to entertain the matter where it was numbered as J.C.C. No.8 of 2008. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 that the alleged incident took place on 05-09-2003 and A-2 was born on 03-05-1987 and as such by the date of offence he was only 16 years 4 months and 2 days old and subsequently he became major and further after full fledged trial A-1 and A-3 to A-7 in the case were acquitted of the charges framed against them vide judgement in Sessions Case No.103 of 2004, dated 17-03-2008, by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur, but he has not been tried by the Juvenile Court though he completed 17 years of age and in any case his trial in the case is only a futile exercise and even otherwise he cannot be detained by the Court and hence the case is to be quashed by virtue of section 15 (g) (i) of the Juvenile Justice (Case and Protection of Children) Act 56 of 2000 (For short, ‘The Act’). 6. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings in J.C.C. No.8 of 2008? 7. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the case against A-2 was separated from the Sessions Case and it was numbered as J.C.C. No.8 of 2008, on the file of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 8. Therefore, now it is to be seen as to whether by virtue of Section 15 (g) (i) of the Act, is there any bar to inquire into the matter against the juvenile? 9. Hence, it is also to be considered Section 3 of the Act which contemplates that where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with Law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such then not withstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the inquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person, as if such person had continued to be juvenile or child. Therefore, even supposing that he crossed 18 years of age he is to be treated as juvenile as he was juvenile by the date of alleged offence. 10. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows : “Order that may be passed regarding juvenile : (1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, - (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counseling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counseling and similar activities; (c) Order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) Order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money; (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home, - (i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age for a period of not less than two years; (ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile; Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case it is expedient so to do, for reason to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a Probation Officer or a recognized voluntary organization or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order under clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a Probation Officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the Probation Officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3,) explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit persons or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the Probation Officer.” 11. From the above reading, it is clear that Section 15 of the Act only says how to deal with a juvenile involved in a Crime after necessary inquiry is conducted and it is proved that he is guilty of alleged offence charged against him. Clause (g) (i) of the Section provides only how to deal with him, when he completes certain age subject to that inquiry. Therefore, without conducting enquiry and also on the ground that the case against the other accused ender in acquittal that is not a ground to quash the proceedings. So, it is to be seen that the inquiry in the case is to be done. There are no merits in the Petition and accordingly the Criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Further, because this is a matter of 2003 and as such it has become very old, the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is directed to dispose of the matter within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 223 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5885 OF 2009 (Dismissed) September, 09, 2011 DSH