Can FIR be registered against juvenile for petty offence? Karnataka High Court answers

The court, therefore, ordered the transfer of the entire matter to the juvenile police unit for fresh investigation.

What was the case?

• The case arose from a dispute on March 17, 2023, when the complainant objected to land excavation using a JCB machine, claiming the land was under dispute.
• According to the complaint, several persons allegedly assaulted the complainant with stones and metal rods after a confrontation, following which an FIR was registered.
• The police conducted an investigation and filed a chargesheet against all the accused, including the petitioner.
• The petitioner argued that he was 17 years old at the time of the incident, and therefore a juvenile under the law.
• It was contended that the only allegation against him in the chargesheet was that he hit the complainant with a stone, which would at best attract Section 324 of the IPC, punishable with imprisonment up to three years.
• On the other hand, the additional state public prosecutor argued that the police was well within its jurisdiction to register a First Information Report (FIR) against a juvenile and continue the investigation.

Court’s observation

• If the complaint and summary of the chargesheet are read in tandem, the offence that can be laid against the petitioner is the one punishable under IPC Section 324.
• Offence under Section 324 is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or with fine or with both. It punishes any person voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Therefore, if the definitions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for heinous offence and petty offence are juxtaposed with Section 324 of the IPC, the unmistakable inference is that the petitioner can be tried only for petty offence as defined under the Act and not for heinous offence.
• Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, mandates that no FIR shall be registered against a juvenile except where the offence alleged is heinous, whether it is committed by a child solitarily or jointly with adults.
• The word that separates the two insists where the heinous offence is alleged to have been committed by the child would undoubtedly mean committed by a child solitarily.
• The second instance is where such offences are alleged to have been committed together with adults.
• The contention of the additional state public prosecutor is that such an offence is relatable to both the instances and, therefore, a child where it is a petty offence or heinous offence if it is committed with adults, they are inseparable and, therefore, the rules permit a child to be tried by a regular court.
• The said submission is unacceptable as the rules are clear that a juvenile can be tried by a regular court only if he is accused of commission of a heinous offence.
• The juvenility of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is a settled principle of law that the plea of juvenility can be urged even before the apex court if the matter were to reach it.
• Therefore, to avoid the projection of juvenility at a later point in time, it is necessary to nip the trial in the bud and transmit the papers to the children’s court or juvenile police unit to conduct investigation altogether from the beginning and place it before the children’s court under the Act for the concerned court to regulate its procedure once it is considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• If a trial is permitted against the petitioner of 17 years and 10 months at the time of commission of the offence, it would be permitting the jurisdictional police or the court to try an accused without jurisdiction.