Allowed

Shobh Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/4962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, 1986. The court held that the impugned orders were mechanically erred and liable to be set aside, primarily because the alleged labours were aged 15 and 16, exceeding the statutory age of a 'child' (under 14).

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. Criminal Complaint Case No. 2421 of 2019, the cognizance order dated 3.7.2019, and the bailable warrant dated 25.4.2024 were set aside.

Shobh Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40828

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4962 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shobh Nath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Singh,Deepak Singh,Preeti Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2421 of 2019 under sections 14(2)(3) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow including summoning/ cognizance order dated 3.7.2019 and bailable warrant dated 25.4.2024.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (in short, 1986 Act) shows that the provisions of this Act are applicable to child and adolescent which are defined under section 2 of 1986 Act. The impugned cognizance and summoning order has been issued in a mechanical manner without adverting to the provisions of Section 14 of 1986 Act.

¶9

It is next submitted that section 14(3) of 1986 Act has been omitted and section 14(2) is applicable

¶10

only on the accused who are already convicted. The petitioner is not a previous convict. As per the complaint case filed by the respondents, both the alleged child labours are 15 and 16 years old. Therefore as per admitted case of the prosecution, the provisions of section 14 of 1986 Act are not applicable as it is only applicable in case the child is below fourteen years of age. According to Section 2(ii), 'child' means a person who has not completed 14 year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, 2009 Act), whichever is more. It is submitted that in 2009 Act also, the age is less than 14 years for a child.

¶11

4.A perusal of section 14 of 1986 Act shows that Sub Section (3) of Section 14 of 1986 Act has been omitted vide Act No.35 of 2016. Therefore, the summoning order could not have been issued under Section 14(3) of 1986 Act.

¶12

Likewise, section 14(2) appears to be applicable only against the convicted accused. For convenience, Sub Section(2) of Section 14 is reproduced as under :

¶13

" Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under Section 3 or Section 3-A commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extent to three years ".

¶14

5.A perusal of the above extracted provision shows that it is applicable only on the accused who have been convicted of an offence under

¶15

Section 3 or Section 3-A and not to a person who is being prosecuted for the first time and thus, the summoning order as regards the applicant under Section 14(2) appears to be bad in law and thus is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Further, as a child defined in Section 2(iii) of 1986 Act means a person who has not completed his fourteen year of age and keeping in view that in the present case, both the alleged child labourers are above 14 years of age, being 15 and 16 years old, there is no question of application of Section 14 of 1986 Act.

¶17

6.Considering the argument advanced, perusal of the record as also the legal provisions given in 1986 Act, I find that the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.2421 of 2019 under sections 14(2)(3) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow including summoning/ cognizance order dated 3.7.2019 and bailable warrant dated 25.4.2024 are liable to be and are hereby set aside.

¶18

7.The petition is accordingly allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 kkb/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shobh Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobh Nath Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harshmani Singh @ Munna vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and Another

Pragyesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Aviation, Lko. and Another

Chhotu Singh Alias Abhinav Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Rajnikant Pandey Alias Arpan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Asif Alias Vicky Alias Aasim Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Zahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another