Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Registration in Child Abuse Case, Citing Non-Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act Provisions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed for the registration of an FIR under various sections of the IPC and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case, titled Master Laksh (CNCP) v. State of Haryana and others, dealt with the alleged physical abuse and threats against a minor.

The court delved into the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, assessing whether the petitioner, a minor, fell under the definition of ‘child in need of care and protection’ as per the Act.

The petitioner, a 10-year-old child, through his mother, alleged physical abuse and threats by his uncles. The police, after investigation, deemed the allegations false, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directions to register an FIR.

Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the case, meticulously analyzed the definitions under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court observed, “It is held that the case of petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does not fall within the scope of ‘child in need of care and protection’.” The Court also noted that the complaints were investigated and found to be baseless.

The judgment highlighted the nuances of the Juvenile Justice Act, particularly the definitions of ‘child in conflict with law’ and ‘child in need of care and protection’. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of these definitions in the case of “Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors.”

The Court dismissed the petition, stating, “Having regard to all the aforesaid discussion, no direction is required to be issued to any of the official respondents.” However, it allowed the petitioner the liberty to seek alternative remedies in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2024

Master Laksh (CNCP) v. State of Haryana and others

 

Latest Legal News