Dismissed

Raveendran @ Moni v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2020Crl.MC/6748/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings based on claim that accused is a child in conflict with law under 2000 Act. Held juvenility must be claimed at trial; premature application does not justify invoking Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing proceedings on grounds of juvenility disallowed and criminal miscellaneous case dismissed.

Raveendran @ Moni Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1961/2011 DATED 02-09-2017 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

¶7

CRIME NO.238/1990 OF CBCID, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAVEENDRAN @ MONI S/O.VISWAMBARAN, PANDARAVILAKOM, CHANTHAPURAM NAGAROOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A.

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE DY.S.P.CBCID, KOLLAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017 2

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The accused No.3 came up to quash the entire proceedings initiated in SC NO.1961/2011 of the II^nd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, on the ground that he is a child in conflict with law as per the provisions contained in 2000 Act, ie. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short '2000 Act'). But the offence was committed prior to the commencement of 2000 Act. As such, the petitioner, accused No.3 is governed by the earlier Act of 1986, ie. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. It is submitted that Section 20 of the 2000 Act would come into play as far as pending cases are concerned. The non obstante clause incorporated in Section 20 would operate only with respect to a juvenile and the proceedings pending against the juvenile in any court or in any area on the date of commencement of the 2000 Act. A

¶19

constitution Bench of Apex Court in Pratap Singh v.

¶20

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017 3

¶21

State of Jharkhand and another [(2005) 3 SCC 551] had laid down the legal position that the question of Juvenility of a person in conflict with law has to be determined by referring to the date of incident and not the date on which the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. The impact of Section 20 of new Act also discussed and settled by the Apex Court in Pratap Singh's case as follows:

¶22

“Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases and begins with a non obstante clause. The sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force” has great significance. The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the Act are relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force. The term “any court” would include even ordinary criminal courts. If the person was a “juvenile” under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 years. This shows that Section 20 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been

¶23

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017 4

¶24

passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, shall forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.”

¶25

2. It is also well settled in that the

¶26

question of juvenility can be initiated at any

¶27

stage of the proceedings in ( Hari Ram v. State of

¶28

Rajasthan and another (2009 (13) SCC 211) . As per

¶29

the provision contained in the 2000 Act, it is

¶30

mandatory that the court should conduct an enquiry when there is a claim of juvenility brought to the notice of the court. But that doesn't mean that invariably in all cases the court has to comply with the requirement under the provisions of the 2000 Act. The court is expected to conduct an enquiry only when there is a claim raised by the person raising any question of juvenility. The question of juvenility raised during the course of trial will not stop its proceedings till conviction entered into even going by the provisions in the 2000 Act. The court cannot impose sentence when the accused found to be a juvenile, but instead of

¶31

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017 5

¶32

imposing sentence, the same can be referred to the juvenile board. The Juvenile Board thereon has to proceed further as if the entire proceedings were initiated before it. So the application submitted for adjudicating juvenility is premature. There is no reason for invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Crl.M.C. is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.6748 OF 2017 6

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY ABSTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT LPS PARAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP.NO.1550/2017 FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW FOR A DIRECTION TO SEND THE FILE FOR ENQUIRY UNDER JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COURT. ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2017 IN CMP.NO.1550/2017 IN SC.NO.1961/2011 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM.

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A TO JUDGE

Raveendran @ Moni v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran @ Moni v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasannan Vs Julie Giri

Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil Vs Suresh Kumar C.

M.v.Jayarajan Vs M/S.Ziquitza Health Case Limited

Smt. Saraswathy Peethambaran Vs Syamala

Dhanesh, Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala