Dismissed

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2023CRMP/668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition claiming juvenility filed after the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present petition without examining the merit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; merit of the juvenile claim left open.

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 668 of 2023

¶5

Omprakash S/o Shri Setram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Kurdi, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Rishi Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Government Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

23.11.2023

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present Cr.M.P. claiming juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, mainly contending that the petitioner’s date of birth is 10.06.1992 and his age is 17 years, 04 months and 14 days on the date of commission of offence i.e. 24.10.2009 as such he was juvenile, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as “juvenile/child in conflict with law” in Crime No. 284/2009 registered at Police Station Jaijaipur, District - Janjgir-Champa (now Sakti) C.G.

¶15

The record of the case is that the petitioner was convicted in a Crime No. 284/2009 registered before the Police Station Jaijaipur, district – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.0 for commission of offence under Sections 341, 294, 506B, 323, 307, 34 of IPC which was subsequently registered as Sessions Trial No. 26/2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has sentenced for life imprisonment to the petitioner alongwith other accused. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 522/2011 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

Hon’ble Division bench vide its order dated 29.01.2018 has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶18

The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench has preferred SLP(Crl.) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as SLP(Crl.) No. 9401/2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.10.2019 has dismissed the SLP(Crl.). Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present CRMP for claiming juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner can claim juvenile under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the Act, 2000”) at any time in the any proceedings. Section 7(A) of the Act, 2000 reads as under:-

¶19

“ Section 7(A) . Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.—

¶20

(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

¶21

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.]”

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the juvenile can take plea of his juvenile at any time before any proceeding as such present Cr.M.P. is maintainable. To substantiate he would draw attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4771 and would refer paragraph 14 of the judgment which reads as under:-

¶25

“14. The claim of juvenility can thus be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case and if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, it is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court, shall be deemed to have no effect. Even though the offence in this case may have been committed before the enactment of the Act of 2000, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of juvenility under Section 7-A of the Act of 2000, if on inquiry it is found that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of the alleged offence.”

¶26

On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that present CRMP is not maintainable before this Court, as the SLP(Crl.) has already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not deal with the issue involved in this Cr.M.P. he would further submit that after dismissal of the SLP(Crl.) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the prayer of the petitioner claiming juvenile and would pray for dismissal of Cr.M.P..

¶27

The record of the case would show that since no proceeding is pending before this Court, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable and also taking into consideration that since SLP(Crl.) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court any application claiming juvenile cannot be entertained by this Court. As such the present Cr.M.P. is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim put forward by the defendant claiming juvenile, the claim of juvenile is left open.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Manish

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyani Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tereshwari Devi @ Uttra Vs Lal Tarkeshwer Shah Khusro

Ambika Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Sahu Vs Bharat Sahu

Janpad Panchayat Surajpur Vs Union of India

Janpad Panchayat Pratappur Vs Union of India