Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Sidhique Chundakadan S/o Muhammed Kutty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime no.54/2020 of Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending before the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode as S.C. No.860/2022. The petitioner seeks quashment of the said crime, as also, all further proceedings therefrom, on the premise that the offence alleged under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘J.J. Act’) will not lie in the given facts and circumstances.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. The prosecution allegations are as follows:
One Ajin, aged 6 years, who was inmate of the Home for Mentally Deficient Children (HMDC) at Vellimadukunnu, Kozhikode, urinated while sleeping. Infuriated by the same, certain other inmates (accused nos.1 to 4) have assaulted the said Ajin and he succumbed to death. Accused nos.5 and 6 are the Multi Task Care Providers of the said institution, who permitted children who have attained majority to stay along with the minor children, contrary to specific instructions in this regard. The specific allegation against petitioner/A7 is that he has committed supervisory lap
To constitute 'willful neglect' under Section 75 of the J.J. Act, actions must be intentional and deliberate, not merely negligent.
The conduct of reprimanding a child did not constitute cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The interpretation of 'actual charge of, or control over' a child under Section 75 of the J.J. Act, 2015 should be construed in a strict sense, and liability under the provision depends on the actual....
Disciplinary measures in schools, such as enforcing a uniform dress code, do not constitute cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Insufficient evidence was found to support charges under the Juvenile Justice Act against the petitioner as she was not in actual control of the children and her actions did not constitute abuse.
The legal responsibility of guardianship regarding child welfare under the Juvenile Justice Act and implications of abandonment.
A person must have actual charge or control over a child to be held liable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Mere managerial responsibility does not confer such control.
The court clarifies that abandonment under Section 75 of the JJ Act does not require the act of leaving a child to be 'wholly' neglectful as per Section 317 IPC.
The necessity for control over a minor under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for applicable charges.
The court emphasized the requirement of actual charge or control over a child for the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
