Petitioner challenged orders dismissing a plea for juvenile status and quashing charges under POCSO Act. Court held impugned orders correctly passed as additional requirements under section 34(2) were not met. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr). No. 67 of 2019
Sekend Murmu @ Sikandar Murmu …… Petitioner Versus
…… Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III
06/Dated: 08/08/2023
Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the State.
2
which is almost two years ago from that day and the age of the petitioner was found as 16 years and the matter was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. He submits that the matter was considered by the Juvenile Justice Board and in the enquiry in the light of order dated 01.09.2018, it was found that the age of the petitioner was 16 years one month and eight days and the petitioner is able to understand the result of the said Act committed by him and hence the case of the petitioner was transferred to Child Board and further it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad for framing of charge and trial. He submits that petition under section 34(2) of POCSO Act was filed on 12.10.2018 before the learned Sessions Judge. He submits that the learned court found the age of the victim as 18 years and the alleged occurrence stated to be six months earlier hence the age of the victim was reduced by six months by the learned court. He submits that the date of occurrence for the petitioner and victim is required to be one whereas it has been differently considered by the learned court. He submits that without any basis charge has been framed under POCSO Act. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may be quashed.
3
and that is why the learned court rejected the petition. It transpires that when the materials are not brought before the learned court the said order has been rightly passed. No interference of this Court is required. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sekend Murmu @ Sikandar Murmu
The State of Jharkhand
Rasmuni Kumari @ Rasmani Kumari
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court