Proceedings initiated under a repealed statute cannot be sustained, leading to quashing of the case against the petitioner.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.8842/2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, arising out of Cr.No.137/2023 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for offences punishable under Section 41 and 42 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short ‘JJ Act’) 1986 and Section 74(1) and 85 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘JJ (C &PC) Act’) (JJCC & PC) Act, 2015).

2. The first informant-District Child Protection Officer, South Division, Bengaluru City, set the law into motion by lodging a complaint with the police alleging that one Sri Sai Sneha Foundation (for short ‘Foundation’) was being run by accused No.1 without permission or license and in the said Foundation, she has kept the children in contravention of the provisions of the JJ Act, 1986 and without following the procedures contemplated under the said Act etc.

3. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 74(1) and 85 of the JJ (C & PC), 2015 Act and Section 41 and 42 of the JJ Act, 1986.

4. Section 74(1) of the JJ (C & PC) Act, 2015, reads as under:

“74. Prohibition on disclosure of identity of children.

(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published:

Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Board or Committee, as the case may be, holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the best interest of the child.”

5. Section 85 of JJ (C & PC) Act, 2015, reads as under:

85. Offences Committed On Disabled Children.

“Whoever commits any of the offences referred to in this Chapter on any child who is disabled as so certified by a medical practitioner, then, such person shall be liable to twice the penalty provided for such offence.”

6. The allegations are that the petitioner has been running the Foundation without registration as required under the JJ Act and he has kept the children in the said Foundation without reporting to the Child Welfare Committee etc. If the said allegations are taken note of, then, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 74(1) and 85 of the JJ (C & PC) Act, 2015 are made out.

7. It is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the offences under Section 41 and 42 of the JJ Act, 1986 are made out since the petitioner has not registered the Foundation wherein, the children were kept by her. She has therefore, contended that the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

8. It is relevant to see that the police have filed FIR under Section 41 and 42 of the JJ Act, 1986 which was repealed by 2000 Act and subsequently by 2015 Act. It is not made clear even in the charge sheet that Section 41 and 42 pertains to Act, 2015, whereas separately the provisions are mentioned. When crime is registered under the repealed Act, the entire investigation taken up consequently cannot be held to be in accordance with law.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is teaching the children in different institutions and she has formed the Trust (Foundation) with a sole intention to serve the society more particularly, the vulnerable section of society and in the said Foundation, no children are there at present.

10. Since this Court finds that registration of FIR was under a repealled Act and Section 74(1) and 85 of the JJ Act (C &PC), 2015 are not applicable, proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse process