JAIPRAKASH SURU SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is for quashing the First Information Report registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 370 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. There are consequential prayers including a prayer for challenging the circular dated 24th April, 2015 issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. We must note here that during the pendency of this Petition, the petitioner appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dongri, Mumbai and pleaded guilty. By order dated 5 th December, 2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner was held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the said Act of 2000") and Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order dated 5th December, 2016 has attained finality as the petitioner has not challenged the same. Therefore, now it is not necessary to consider the prayer for quashing the FIR. However, the prayer for quashing the circular dated 24th April, 2015 will have to be considered on merits.

(2.) Therefore, the submissions which are canvassed across the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor are confined to the legality and validity of circular dated 24th April, 2015. The said circular reads thus :-

(3.) The submission is that the circular is illegal inasmuch as under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2000, the jurisdiction conferred on the Juvenile Justice Board (for short "the Board") is confined to dealing with the proceedings under the said Act of 2000 relating to juveniles in conflict with law. It is pointed out that admittedly, the petitioner was not a juvenile in conflict with law on the date on which the alleged offence was committed. Therefore, the submission is that the impugned circular issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is illegal as the Board is not conferred with the power to deal with the proceedings relating to the persons who are not juveniles in conflict with law. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the circular by relying upon clause (b) of Rule 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short "the said Rules") framed by the Central Government. His submission is that in view of clause (b) of Rule 10 of the said Rules, jurisdiction is conferred on the Board to take cognizance of the officences punishable under Sections 23 to 28 of the said Act of 2000 and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the said circular.