Child In Conflict vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This criminal revision is preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 31.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.147/2026 by Vth Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence), Indore arising out of order dated 11.02.2026 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District Indore whereby the application of the child in conflict with law in relation to Crime No. 147/2026 registered at police station Banganga, District Indore has been rejected and the child in conflict law has been denied to be handed over on supurdgi to his father.

Facts in brief are that child in conflict with law was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Indore in connection with Crime No.147/2026 registered at Police Station Banganga, District Indore for the offences under Sections 69 and 89 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The Juvenile Justice Board, Indore found him minor.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Indore and Special Judge, Indore have rejected the application on the ground that if the child in conflict with law is given on supurdgi, then there is every possibility that his moral, physical and psychological health will be prejudiced and there is a possibility that he will again commit the same kind of offences.

Challenging the order, this revision has been preferred on the ground that the impugned orders are in violation of the provision of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and both the Courts have not considered the social investigation report.

It is submitted that the relationship between the child in conflict with law and prosecutrix were consensual in nature and the age of the prosecutrix was major aged about 18 years.

State has opposed the application on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature. His trial has to be conducted as an adult and reasons for not granting the benefit of supurdgi is proper.

Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the relationship between child in conflict with law and prosecutrix seems to be consensual, this revision succeeds and the orders of both the courts below are set aside and it is ordered that the child in conflict with law be handed over to his father on his furnishing supurdginama to a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) that he be kept present before the court as and when called and shall keep him away from exposure of any unlawful activities and will provide him the atmosphere that will be helpful in grooming his career.