CRM No. M 21707 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 21707 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.02.2011 Pardeep Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 12.01.2007 (P5), passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar, vide which, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C has been dismissed on the ground that as the additional accused is not a juvenile as such juvenile Board can try the case of only juvenile with further prayer to direct the Juvenile Justice Board to reconsider the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C (P4) in accordance with law. As accused, namely, Kamal and Lucky were minors, the case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Thereafter, an application CRM No. M 21707 of 2009 2 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved for summoning Ajit Singh son of Tarlok Singh as an additional accused. The said Ajit Singh is not a juvenile. Accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board, vide its order dated 12.01.2007, dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that the Board has no jurisdiction to decide the same as the Board is only to try the cases of the Juveniles. Vide this Court's order dated 25.10.2010, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench to consider the question of law 'as to whether the Juvenile Justice Board has the jurisdiction to try an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning a person who is not a juvenile'. In pursuance to the same, the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Accordingly, Hon'ble the Division Bench, vide it order dated 07.01.2011, has answered the said question as under:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the Juvenile Justice Board has power and jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 319 of `the Code' for summoning the additional accused, like the other Magistrate, and issue summon to him, even if that person is not a juvenile. This power of the Juvenile Justice Board is incidental and ancillary to the main power to take cognizance as part of normal process in the administration of criminal justice. The only prohibition for a Juvenile Justice Board is that it cannot charge and try a juvenile for an offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. In our opinion, such prohibition does not debar Juvenile Justice Board from taking cognizance and summoning a person against whom some incriminating evidence comes during the CRM No. M 21707 of 2009 3 trial. In that situation, he has been empowered under Section 18 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act to separate their trial and send the other person, who is not a juvenile, to the Court of competent jurisdiction for trial.” In view of the above, the present petition is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar with a direction to re-consider an application dated 22.12.2006 under Section 319 Cr.P.C (P4) on merit, in accordance with law. The said application shall be decided within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 04.02.2011 mohan