Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Transfer of Trial, Treating Juvenile as Adult in Heinous Offense Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 3, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, has upheld the transfer of trial and treated a juvenile in a heinous offense case as an adult. The decision came in a Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-452-2023) filed by the juvenile, Bholu, who was in conflict with the law, against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The case pertained to an incident that occurred on September 8, 2017, in Gurugram, where the juvenile was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The High Court, after careful consideration of the previous orders and appeals, including those made before the Supreme Court, found that the Juvenile Justice Board had followed the directions of the apex court and conducted a detailed assessment of the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile. The Board concluded that the juvenile possessed the necessary capacity to understand the consequences of the offense and transferred the trial to the Children's Court under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act.

The Court further observed that the Board had strictly adhered to the Supreme Court's directions and found no illegality in its decision. The detailed assessment included factors such as mental age, intelligence functioning, clinical assessment, social investigation report, and family circumstances. The Court also took note of the absence of evidence regarding parental neglect, abuse, or substance abuse by the juvenile.

03.05.2023

Bholu, a ‘Juvinile in conflict with law’ vs Central Bureau of Inves ga on

Latest Legal News