Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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.    

 

Similar News