The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to treat juveniles differently from adults in criminal cases, as emphasized by the principles and legal provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act.

1. Bashir Ahmad Khanday son of Ali Mohammad Khanday resident of Nasarpora, Khag, on 07.01.2009 lodged a written complaint with Police Station Khag, alleging therein that on the said date at 4:30 PM, S/Shri Sadiq Khanday, Farooq Ahmad Khanday, Mushtaq Ahmad Khanday, Reyaz Ahmad Khanday - petitioners herein and Mst. Mugli and Mst.Fata alias Naza, caught hold of his daughter - Kulsuma Bano, near local mosque and subjected her to beating; that Kulsuma Bano was so severely thrashed that the complainant lost hope of her life. The report prompted P/S Khag to register FIR No.01 of 2009 under section 307, 341, 34 RPC. The victim succumbed to injuries and offence under section 307 was changed to 302 RPC. After usual investigation the case was closed as proved against the petitioners and charge-sheet, alleging commission of offence under section 302, 341, 34 RPC, presented against the petitioners. The Trial Court upon perusal of the charge sheet and on hearing the public prosecutor and defence counsel as also petitioners held that the material prima facie disclosed commission of offence punishable under section 302, 341, 34 RPC, by the petitioners. The petitioners were, accordingly, charged of said offences. The petitioners denied the charge and asked for early trial.

2. Before the trial would commence and the prosecution asked to adduce evidence in support of the charge, the petitioners filed instant petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the charge.

3. The case set up by the petitioners is that having regard to the age of victim, the weapon of offence, part of body of the victim, where blows were allegedly given and the injuries found on the person of victim, a case under section 302 RPC was not made out and the Trial Court thus erroneously charged the accused - petitioners with the offence punishable under section 302 RPC. The order dated 28th of August 2009 is assailed as one amounting to abuse of process of court. It is pleaded that in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, must quash order in question and ask Trial Court to charge the petitioners of the offences made out on objective perusal of the charge sheet and material appended thereto. Order dated 28th August 2009. according the petitioners, denies benefit available under J&K Juvenile Justice Act 1997 to the petitioner - Mushtaq Ahmad Khanday and on that count also the order is assailed as amounting to abuse of process of the court, warranting interference under section 561-A Cr.P.C.

4. Heard and considered.

5. It is well settled law that the inherent powers available to the Court under Section 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised only to prevent abuse of process of the Court, secure the ends of justice or to give effect to an order under the Code. No doubt, the inherent powers, vested in this Court, are an inalienable attribute of the position this Court holds with respect to the courts subordinate to this Court, yet the powers are to be exercised rarely, sparingly and with utmost circumspection. It would be apt to extract hereunder, observations made by the Supreme Court in case Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 1126: -

"10. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rate cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document