Case Title:
Punjab And Haryana High Court Dismisses The Order Of The Magistrate
Date Of Order:
08.02.2021
Judge:
JAISHREE THAKUR J.
Parties:
Petitioner: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Subject
A petition was submitted in accordance with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the "CrPC"), asking for the revocation of the magistrate's order designating the petitioner as a proclaimed criminal.
The court noted that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (the "JJ Act"), only the Juvenile Justice Board (the "JJ Board"), and not a magistrate, may issue an order.
Important Provisions
1. Code of Criminal Procedure
A. Section 482
This section talks about saving of the High Court's inherent powers. Nothing in this Code shall be construed as limiting or affecting the inherent authority of the High Court to issue any orders that may be required to carry out any orders made hereunder, to prevent abuse of any Court's process, or to further the interests of justice.
B. Section 82
This section talks about the proclamation for person absconding.
2. The Indian Penal Code of 1860
A. Sections 323
Except in the circumstances described in section 334, the penalty for intentionally inflicting harm on another person is either imprisonment of either kind for a time that may not exceed one year, a fine that may not exceed one thousand rupees, or both.
B. Sections 325
The penalty for intentionally causing great bodily harm is imprisonment of either sort for a time that may last up to seven years and/or a fine. This punishment does not apply under the circumstances described in section 335.
C. Sections 506
Criminal intimidation is a crime that carries a potential two-year prison sentence, a fine, or a combination of the two. If the threat involves causing death or serious injury, for example, the punishment will likely include both.
3. JJ Act, 2000
A. Sections 2(k)
B. Sections 2(l)
C. Sections 2(p)
D. Sections 15
E. Sections 18
BRIEF FACTS
- An FIR was filed under Sections 323, 325, and 506 of the Penal Code of 1860, alleging that the petitioner was a polling agent during the Panchayat Elections.
- When he and the complainant got into a brawl that was later resolved by the people on both sides.
- However, on the same day, twenty to twenty-five people arrived on various cars bearing weapons and caused injuries while the complainant was present in his home.
- The petitioner, who is also one of the co-accused, is said to have been carrying a kirpan and to have taken part in the crime.
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Whether, when a juvenile and an adult are accused of the same crime, can combined proceedings be conducted?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The petitioner emphasised that this occurrence occurred on July 19, 2013, and that the petitioner's passport provided proof of his birth date, which is February 19, 1998.
- Therefore, it was argued that the petitioner had been wrongfully accused because he was under the age of 15 on the date of the alleged incident.
- The petitioner was cleared after an investigation and the investigating agency dropped all charges against him.
- The appellant emphasised, that the petitioner was a student and he had no prior convictions or affiliations with any illegal or immoral acts.
- Furthermore, the appellant claimed that there was no evidence presented to the court indicating the petitioner had a criminal history or that any of his family members had been the subject of criminal proceedings.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The responded argued that the petitioner was served with a non-bailable warrant on October 13, 2018, and the respondent claimed that the warrant was returned on October 25, 2018, indicating that the petitioner was not present at his residence.
- It was argued that the petitioner's proclamation was attached on December 15th, 2018, postponing the case until January 18th, 2019.
- After the required 30-day period had passed, the petitioner was identified as a proclaimed offender.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court noted that the statutory 30-day period required by Section 82 CrPC for the order of proclamation had not yet passed.
- The Court noted that the fact that the publication of the proclamation was affected on December 15, 2018, and that the required 30-day period had not yet passed on December 21, 2018, is undisputed, and that the case was only continued for the aforementioned reason to January 18, 2019, when the order was issued.
- The Court noted that because the alleged offence was committed in 2013, the JJ Act, 2000, as modified, applied, and the petitioner, who was under 15 at the time of the incident, would be considered a "Juvenile in conflict with the law."
- Additionally, it was noted that under Sections 2(k), 2(l), 2(p), 15 and 18 of the JJ Act, 2000, there cannot be combined proceedings between a juvenile and other criminals. As a result, under Chapter II of the JJ Act, 2000, only the JJ Board was authorised to make any decisions. As a result, the Court determined that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue the order designating the petitioner as the proclaimed criminal.
- Due to the aforementioned factors, the Court granted the petition and revoked the decree that had previously labelled the petitioner a proclaimed offender.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, all Juvenile Justice Boards in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh will be required to record their reasons for denying bail as well as the events that led to such a decision. This said decision shall be based on the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer in accordance with the pro forma contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, and will be supported by social investigation reports from other agencies.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
