Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
Divya K. Sajeev W/o Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations related to abuse under juvenile justice act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court found insufficient evidence for charges. (Para 4) |
ORDER :
1. The second accused in C.C No.196/2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against her in the above case. The case relates to the commission of offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she, while working as the caretaker of Children’s Home at Manganamkudy, behaved in such a manner causing mental pain to the inmates of that children’s home. It is alleged that when the first informant child and other inmates asked the petitioner about their study matters, she responded that it would be looked into later on. Another allegation is that the petitioner scolded the first informant child and other inmates when they complained about the acts of another child assaulting certain other inmates of that children’s home. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner, along with accused Nos 1 and 3, committed offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
3. He
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.
The conduct of reprimanding a child did not constitute cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act.
To constitute 'willful neglect' under Section 75 of the J.J. Act, actions must be intentional and deliberate, not merely negligent.
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.
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.
No case under IPC or JJ Act established as victim was not in bondage.
The necessity for control over a minor under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for applicable charges.
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
