1997 Supreme(Raj) 1490
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.
Manju - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 592 of 1997.
Decided On : 2-12-1997
A major woman cannot be given in the custody of any person against her will unless there is an express provision of law authorizing such detention.
Headnote:
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - NEGLECTED JUVENILE - INTERPRETATION - CUSTODY OF MINOR GIRL - JURISDICTION OF BOARD - SUPURDAGI - MAJORITY - PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, which directed that the petitioner, a major woman, be given in the custody of her father or brother for a period of two months. The petitioner contended that she was a major and could look after her own interests and that there was no reason why her liberty should be curtailed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was a neglected juvenile as defined under Section 2(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and that the Board constituted under the Act had the jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders for her protection.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a neglected juvenile as defined under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986? 2. Whether the Board constituted under the Act had the jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders for her protection? 3. Whether the petitioner could be given in the custody of any person against her will?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "neglected juvenile" under Section 2(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and held that a female below 18 years of age would be entitled to be called a "neglected juvenile" if her case fell in one or more of the sub-clauses of Section 2(1) of the Act. 2. The court held that the Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act had the jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders for the protection of the petitioner, as she was a neglected juvenile. 3. The court held that in the absence of express provisions of law authorizing the court to give a major girl in the custody of any other person, it would not be advisable to do so.
Final Decision: The court directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to forward the petitioner to the Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act for inquiry and appropriate orders. The Board was directed to ascertain whether the petitioner was a minor and a destitute juvenile as defined in the Act. If she was found to be a major, she was to be set at liberty, unless she made any application under some provision of law for being placed in a particular custody. If she was found to be a minor, necessary orders were to be passed by the Board for her protection until she attained majority.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the papers which have been received from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera.
2. By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 28.6.1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera be quashed as it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and the petitioner should be set at liberty so that she may be free to go where she likes under the protection of the police.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a major woman and she can look after her interest very well and therefore, there is no reason why her liberty should be curtailed by keeping her in the custody of her father or brother or any other person or authority.
4. The facts so far they are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised below.
5. It appears that Shri Ram Lal filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera on 1.8.1996 against Amba Lal and Champa Lal alleging the commission of offence under section 366 read with 120 B IPC in respect of Smt. Manju, who is the daughter of Bhanwar Lal and sister of Ram Lal. The complaint was sent to police u/ s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered the first information report No. 392/96 in respect of offence under section 366 IPC. During investigation Smt. Manju was recovered by the police on 10.6.1997. At the time of recovery she was found in the company of Amba Lal s/o Chhoga Lal and both of them were near the temple of Radha Kishan in Tikam Nagar. Ram Lal, who was accompanying the police officer identified Smt. Manju at the time of recovery.
6. On 27.6.1997 Ram Lal submitted an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera and prayed that Smt. Manju, who was a minor should be given in his custody. It was also stated in the application that Amba Lal and Champa Lal had taken away Smt. Manju to Surat and that Smt. Manju was a minor. The copy of the transfer certificate purporting to have been issued by the Head Master of the Government Upper Primary School was also submitted. According to the transfer certificate, the date of birth of Smt. Manju was 1.7.1980.
7. An application on behalf of Srnt. Manju was also submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. In that application, it was alleged that Ram Lal wanted to send Smt. Manju in "Nata" against her will and that she had been abandoned by her husband with whom she was legally married and that her age was about 19 years and that she wanted to establish herself according to her wishes and she should be either set free or sent with his relative Nand Lal, a resident of Ghosund a. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing the arguments on both the applications and considering the entries of the transfer certificate and the result of radiological examination conducted at General Hospital, Chittorgarh, came to the conclusion that the evidence regarding her age was conflicting, that the matter was under investigation, that it was necessary to give two months time to Smt. Manju and in view of these circumstances, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that Smt. Manju be given in the custody of her father Bhanwar La or his brother Ram Lal for a period which was to end on 29.8.1997.
8. It is against this order that this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. It is not disputed that Smt. Manju is the daughter of Bhanwar Lal. It is also not disputed that her marriage with Jagdish was celebrated about 8 years ago and her husband Jagdish is alive. It is not disputed that Smt. Manju was recovered by the police at Surat and at that time she was accompanying Amba Lal.
9. During arguments, it was revealed that Amba Lal is already married and her wife is living with him. No case has been registered aga
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
