The main legal point established is that the claim of juvenility under the JJ Act, 2000 must be promptly decided by the trial court, and failure to do so warrants reconsideration within the stipulated time frame.

1. The petitioner in both the criminal original petitions is the sole Accused in S.C. No. 130 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. Originally, including the petitioner, there were four accused in the said case. The Accused Nos. 2 & 3 are the parents and the 4th Accused is the uncle of the 1st Accused/the petitioner herein. As against the petitioner the trial court framed a single charge under Section 376 of IPC. As against the other Accused, the trial court framed charges under Section 417, 471 r/w 109 and 506(ii) of IPC. The Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed an original petition in Criminal O.P. No. 9823 of 2011 seeking to quash the said case. This court, by order dated 20.06.2012, quashed the charges framed as against the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and accordingly they stand discharged. Thus, the petitioner is the sole accused, as of now, facing the trial.

2. The petitioner was residing at No. 192A/49A, Ramanujar Street, Washermenpet, Chennai. The 2nd respondent was residing along with her parents at No. 289, Solaiyappan Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were studying X Standard, they had acquaintance with each other. When they reached XII Standard, they started loving each other. It is the further case of the prosecution that 5-6 months prior to 26.03.2010, the petitioner had sexual intercourse on few occasions with the 2nd respondent by giving a false promise of marriage. Thereafter, when the said relationship came to light, the family members of both the families sat together and discussed to celebrate the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. But, later on, the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 (since discharged) declined to arrange for the said marriage and thus, they cheated the 2nd respondent. It is further set out in the charges that on 15.02.2010, when the parents of the 2nd respondent approached the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 (since discharged) with a view to persuade them to arrange for the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 (since discharged), criminally intimidated them by using abusive language. Thus, the 1st Accused/petitioner herein stands charged for an offence u/s. 376 of IPC, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 417 of IPC and 506(ii) of IPC and the 4th Accused stands charged for offences under Sections 471 r/w 109 and 506(ii) of IPC.

3. During the course of trial, on 18.09.2012, the 2nd respondent was examined as P.W.1. Two more witnesses were also examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 on the same day. The 2nd respondent/P.W.1 was cross examined in part by the counsel for accused. During the course of cross-examination, for a specific question put by the defence counsel, the 2nd respondent/P.W.1 answered that the last act of sexual intercourse between her and the petitioner herein happened in the month of August, 2009. Thus, according to her evidence, the offence of rape was committed lastly in the month of August 2009.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Criminal M.P. No. 10872 of 2012 before the trial court under Section 7A of the JJ Act, 2000 claiming that as on the date of commission of offence, he was a juvenile and, therefore, he should be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry as per the JJ Act, 2000 and he should not be tried by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 19.10.1991 and thus, in the month of August, 2009, he had not completed eighteen years of age. That petition was opposed by the prosecution as well as the 2nd respondent herein by filing counter. But, the learned Sessions Judge did not decide the issue of juvenility forthwith.

5. When the said petition was pending, the prosecution filed a petition in Criminal M.P. No. 12146 of 2012 under Section 216 of Cr. P.C. seeking to alter the charges. That petition was dismissed by the trial court by order