AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 322 wordsThis petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 04.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge, Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide which the application of the father of accused petitioner for declaring him juvenile has been dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the certificate of Board of Secondary Education and
S.R. register maintained for primary admission in school are decisive documents for determination of age of juvenile. In the S.R. Register and mark-
sheet of Board of Secondary Education, date of birth of petitioner is recorded as 05.10.2000. No manipulation in the record of school can be attributed
to the petitioner. Learned trial Court has given unnecessary importance to the oral statements of parents of the petitioner who are illiterate presons,
the petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
Heard and considered.
On scrutiny of the impugned order, in light of contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is revealed that learned trial Court has
conducted a detailed enquiry regarding determination of the age of the petitioner & based on that, a clear cut finding has been recorded that in the
S.R. Register, the date of birth of accused petitioner-Narendra @ Nikku has been manipulated and the year of his birth 1999 has been made to 2000.
Besides this, as per admission of his parents also, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the year of birth of the petitioner is 1999 and
not 2000.
In view of the detailed analysis and well-reasoned appreciation made by the trial Court, no case is made out for interference by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
As a result, the petition is dismissed.
