IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Juvenile Justice Board to independently apply its mind, follow prescribed procedures, and ensure procedural safeguards for juveniles in conflict with law.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.153/2016 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner herein is a Juvenile in Conflict with Law (JCL) in the above case. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC.

3. Originally, the Kuruppampady Police registered Crime No.121/2012 against the petitioner and two others under the above Sections. The petitioner herein was shown as the accused No.2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner and the remaining accused on 28/1/2012 at around 7.00 p.m in pursuance of the existing civil dispute, assaulted the 1st respondent and thereby committed the above mentioned offences.

4. The police, after investigation, filed final report referring the case as false. The respondent No.1/defacto complainant filed a protest complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the protest complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC against all the accused including the petitioner and numbered the case as C.C.No.24/2014. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kuruppampady. While the case was pending there, the learned Magistrate entertained doubt as to the age of the petitioner and after due enquiry found that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate split up the case against the petitioner and forwarded the records to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam who in turn forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ernakulam (for short 'the JJ Board'). The JJ Board on receipt of the case records issued summons to the petitioner to appear before it and answer charges under Sections 323, 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings.

5. I have heard Smt. Sruthy N. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.N. Maya, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the JJ Board, on receipt of the case records straight away issued summons to the petitioner without independently applying its mind to the final report and the protest complaint. The learned counsel further submitted that, the petitioner being a juvenile, the entire proceedings initiated from the inception is vitiated inasmuch as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act for short) and Rules. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly forwarded the complaint to the JJ Board since the petitioner was found to be a minor and the JJ Board has followed the procedural statutory requirements.

7. As stated already, the police, after investigation, filed a final report referring the case as false. Annexure B is the refer report. The respondent No.1/defacto complainant, aggrieved by Annexure B filed a protest complaint. Annexure C is the protest complaint. The Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor took cognizance on the protest complaint against the petitioner as well under Sections 323, 326 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the IPC. Later on, it was found that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and the case against him was transferred to the JJ Board, Ernakulam for further action. The JJ Board, Ernakulam after conducting an enquiry, straight away issued summons to the petitioner.

8. Sub-section (1) Section 7 of the JJ Act, 2000 says that “When any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board under this Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence), is a juvenile or the child, he