2013 Supreme(SC) 1210
ALTAMAS KABIR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, S. A. BOBDE
Bachpan Bachao Andolan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv., Bhuwan R., Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Anand Kumar andGursimranjit Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents:Gopal Singh and Chandan Kumar, Advs. for Bihar and for Tripura, Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv. for Tripura, A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, T.A. Khan, S. Senthil Kumar and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for Union of India, K.N. Madhusoodhanan and T.G. Narayanan Nair, Advs. for Mizoram, A. Mariarputham, AG, Aruna Mathurand Yusuf Khan, Advs., Arputham, Aruna and Co. for Sikkim, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabu Ramasubramanian, Advs. for Pudduchery, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv. for Manipur, Manjit Singh, AAG, Tarjit Singh, Anil Antil and Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs. for Haryana, Suryanarayana Singh, AAG. and Pragati Neekhra, Adv. for Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, Navnit Kumar, Adv. for Corporate Law Group for Assam, Anitha Shenoy, Vishruti Vijay and Neha Singh, Advs. for NALSA, Shobha, Jyoti Rana and Vaijayant Paliwal, Advs. for NHRC, Ajay Bansal, AAG, Devendra Singh, Kuldip Singh, Pardaman Singh, Rajiv Kumar andGaurav Yadav, Advs. for Punjab, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advs. for Chhattisgarh,Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, G.N. Reddy, Siddharth Luthra, ASG, S.W.A. Qadri, Shailender Saini, Rashmi Malhotra, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra, Supriya Juneja and Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for Rajasthan, Asha Gopalan Nair, Abhishek Kumar Pandey and V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. for Maharashtra, Rachana Srivastava and Utkarsh Sharma, Advs. for Respondent No. 29, Anil Shrivastav, Adv. for Arunachal Pradesh, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh and Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. for Nagaland, Subramonium Prasad, AAG, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, T. Mouli Mahendran, Pratap Venugopal, P.K. Jha, Gaurav Nair and Debarshi Bhuyan, Advs. for K.J. John and Co.,Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv. for Tamil Nadu, Upendra Mishra, Sunil Fernandes and Hemantika Wahi, Advs. for Uttar Pradesh, Radha Shyam Jena, Siddharth Panda and Priyabrat Sahu, Advs. for Odisha, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, S. Bhowmick and R.P. Yadav, Advs. for Meghalaya, Vibha Datta Makhija and Arghi Agnihotri, Advs. for Madhya Pradesh, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Avijit Bhattacharjee and Soumi Kundu, Advs. for West Bengal and D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amjid Maqbool and Amit K. Nain, Advs. for Andhra Pradesh
ORDER :
1. The contempt proceedings, which have been initiated by the Petitioner, are dropped.
2. Let this matter be listed again after three months.
3. This matter has been listed pursuant to the direction given on 26th April, 2013, when the contempt petition filed in the writ petition by the Petitioner, complaining of the manner in which a complaint made regarding a missing child was sought to be handled by the concerned police station, was being considered. It has also come up on account of the other directions which had been given for implementing the various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2006 ['Juvenile Act', for short].
4. On 17th January, 2013, when this matter came up for consideration, we had given an interim direction that in case a complaint with regard to any missing children was made in a police station, the same should be reduced into a First Information Report and appropriate steps should be taken to see that follow up investigation was taken up immediately thereafter.
5. An element of doubt has been raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the recording of First Information Report relating t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
