MAHENDRA DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred for quashing the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the Special Judge (under MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.52/2012 whereby an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act) filed by the petitioner herein/accused has been dismissed holding that the petitioner was not a juvenile under the Act.

(2.) The background facts of the case, in brief, are that one Pramod Dhakad was found missing and, therefore, a report of missing person was lodged by his father, Raghuveer Singh on 15.06.2012. During the inquiry, the dead body of Pramod was found, then an FIR at Crime No.408/2012 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 201/34 of IPC. After due investigation, a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner herein, Mahendra Dhakad and one Pankaj Dhakad for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201/34 of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Act before the Special Judge (under MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri. The Special Judge on the basis of the material available on record framed the charge under Section 302/34, 364/34, 201/34 of IPC read with 11/13 of MPDVPK Act against the petitioner herein. During the trial, an application under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules) was submitted by the petitioner herein on 25.07.2012 stating that at the time of the incident i.e., on 15.06.2012, the petitioner was 17 years 11 months and 20 days of age, therefore, he be treated as a juvenile and the case be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. After getting the matter inquired, it was held that the petitioner herein was above 18 years of age and not a juvenile and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. Hence, this petition is preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile in the eye of law and the learned Court below committed an error in making an observation regarding age of the petitioner. The age of the petitioner has to be computed according to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules, which was not done by the Court below. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., 2013 1 MPHT 109 and prayed that the petitioner may be declared to be a juvenile and his matter may be directed to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.