Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

High Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board as a “Criminal Court” – Passport can Withheld in Pending Criminal Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has declared the Juvenile Justice Board to possess the trappings of a “Criminal Court.” The court made this observation while dealing with a case where the petitioner, Hazik Mushtaq, challenged the withholding of his clearance report and sought the re-issuance of his passport/travel document. The judgement was pronounced on 19th July 2023.

The petitioner, falsely implicated in a criminal case registered under IPC Sections 447, 354, 323, 382, and 201, had applied for re-issuance of his passport, which had expired. However, the authorities withheld the travel document citing the pendency of proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Juvenile Justice Act was a welfare legislation, and the proceedings before the Board should not be deemed as “criminal proceedings.”

Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the bench, examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and held that the Juvenile Justice Board, being a forum created by law with the powers of a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, qualifies as a “Criminal Court.” Consequently, the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Board attracted Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, which empowers the authorities to withhold passports in cases with pending criminal proceedings.

The court also referred to an Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, which exempts citizens with pending criminal proceedings from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, subject to appropriate orders from the concerned court permitting travel abroad.

While the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board had been stayed by the High Court in a separate petition, the court clarified that the stay did not mean the proceedings ceased to exist. Therefore, the withholding of the passport was justified as the proceedings were still pending before the Board.

The judgement further noted that the petitioner could still be issued the passport/travel document subject to obtaining appropriate orders from the Juvenile Justice Board. If the Board grants permission for issuance, the petitioner’s academic career, which was at stake, would not be hindered.

With this landmark ruling, the High Court’s interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Passport Act will have implications on cases involving juveniles and their right to travel while facing legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 19.07.2023

HAZIK MUSHTAQ vs UT OF J&K AND OTHERS.    

 

Latest Legal News