The main legal point established in the judgment is that the original complainant did not have the locus standi to file an application for conducting the trial of the juvenile applicant as an adult, and the Sessions Court erred in entertaining the application.

JUDGMENT :

1. The order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court is recalled.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of Respondent-State.

3. By way of preferring this Criminal Revision Application under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, applicant-juvenile in conflict with law has prayed for quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad as well as order dated 02.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) made in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-35/2017 registered with Nadiad West Police Station, Kheda.

4. Heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant- juvenile in conflict with law and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the original complainant name Kusumben had filed a missing complaint of her niece named Tanya, age 7 years on dated 19.09.2017 before the Nadiad West Police Station. In the course of investigation, it has been revealed that in fact the niece of the complainant name Tanya was kidnapped by one Meet Patel for ransom and the best reason known to him. It is alleged that he had killed the Tanya and hence, on 22.09.2017 the police had filed report for addition section 302, 364A, 201 and 120B of the IPC and also to add name of three accused persons i.e. Meet Patel, Kaushal Patel and Ajay Chunilal Bhuriya. After completion of investigation, the police had filed the chargesheet, wherein two accused were said to be minors. The police therefore filed charge-sheet of the two minors juvenile including the applicant herein before the Board. As the charge-sheet was filed before the Board, the original complainant- Kusumben had preferred an application under section 15 of the Act for conducting the trial of the applicant-juvenile as adult and the Board vide order dated 02.05.2018 had allowed the application filed by the complainant and transferred the case before the Sessions Court for conducting the trial of the applicant as adult.

6. The applicant- juvenile in conflict with law herein challenged the order passed by the Board before the Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad, which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 and confirmed the order passed by the Board. Hence, the applicant has challenged the impugned order before this Court by way of present application and prayed to quash and set aside both the orders passed by the Board as well as the learned Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad.

7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learn juvenile in conflict with law ed APP for the respondent- State.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt for the applicant-juvenile in conflict with law submitted that there is clear violation of section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act. He also submitted that the order passed by the Board as well as the Sessions Court are erroneous and without proper appreciating the evidence on record and also overlooked the provisions of law. It is also submitted that the Board as well as the Sessions Court had clearly overlooked the materials on record and Juvenile charge-sheet filed by the police and erred in granting the application filed by the original complainant. He also submitted that for conducting the trial as adult the specific role of the accused has to be seen not only just because he is the accused of heinous offence. The main contention of learned Advocate for the applicant-juvenile in conflict with law is that for conducting the trial as adult, the specific role of the accused has to be seen not only just because he is accused of the heinous offence. The crux of the contentions of the applicant-juvenile in conflict with law is that the original complainant does not have any locus standi to file an application for conducting the trial of the accused as an ad