Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5009

CRL.P No. 100424 of 2026

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100424 OF 2026
(482 OF CR.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:
ATHARVA S/O. MAHANTESH HAVALLI,
AGE: 18 YEARS,
R/O. H.NO.938, MARUI NAGAR,
KUDACHI ROAD, BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE.)

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD, THROUGH TILAKWADI P.S.,
BELAGAVI-590001.
2. SMT. NEETA W/O. VINAYAK KUDATURAKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.78/2, KUDATURAKAR COMPOUND,
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590006,
NOW AT PLOT NO.C-2, 2ND PLOT,
ARIYAS APARTMENT, NEHRU ROAD,
TILAKWADI, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590006.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1.)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Girish Yadawad
For the Respondents: Abhishek Malipatil

A preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for children above 16 years accused of heinous offences is not limited to physical age but encompasses an assessment of mental capacity and maturity, which empowers the Board to transfer trial jurisdiction to a Special Court.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 15, 18(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 2(d) - Preliminary assessment of child in conflict with law - Mental capacity - Whether physical age alone determines juvenile status - Held: Preliminary assessment is mandatory for children above 16 years accused of heinous offences; it encompasses mental and physical capacity to understand consequences of acts; order for transfer to Special Court is legally sound upon expert reports confirming maturity. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a child in conflict with law aged 17 years and 10 months at the time of the alleged offence, challenged the order of the Juvenile Justice Board transferring his case to the Special Court for trial as an adult. The Board had conducted a preliminary assessment, including psychiatric evaluation, which indicated that the petitioner possessed the mental maturity to understand the consequences of his actions.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Board’s order, holding that the assessment of a child under the JJ Act is not solely dependent on physical age but considers mental and cognitive maturity to understand the nature of the alleged heinous crime, justifying the transfer to the Special Court.

Issues: Whether the preliminary assessment of the Juvenile Justice Board, leading to the transfer of the case of a 17-year-old to the Special Court, was vitiated by perversity or illegality.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act empowers the Board to conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if a juvenile above 16 years, accused of a heinous crime, has the mental capacity to comprehend the consequences of their actions. This assessment serves as a valid legal basis under Section 18(3) to transfer the trial to a Special Court.

Result: Petition dismissed.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE, 1973 (SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 AGAINST PETITIONER/CICL NO.1, PASSED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, BELAGAVI IN J.C.NO.39/2025, IN CRIME NO.0095/2025 OF MARKET P.S., BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(M), 70(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(6) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SECTION 4(2), 6, 8, 12, 17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 77 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner/accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 against petitioner/CICL No.1, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Belagavi, in J.C.No.39/2025, arising out of Crime No.0095/2025 of Market P.S., Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under sections 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(m), 70(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) read with section 3(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 4(2), 6, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, by allowing this criminal petition.

2. The petitioner/accused No.1 is facing the charges for the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 309(4), 65(1), 64(2)(m), 70(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 79, 127(2) read with section 3(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 4(2), 6, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, as per the FIR. Since the petitioner/accused No.1 is found to be child in conflict with law (‘CICL’ for short) as per the provisions of law, therefore, he was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board had initiated proceedings making preliminary assessment of the accused. During the preliminary assessment the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days as on the date of alleged occurrence of offence. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has referred the petitioner to a psychiatrist/psychologist to examine the capacity of the petitioner to understand the worldly affairs and whether he is having capacity to understand the consequences of acts being done and for assessment of his mental status and accordingly the psychiatrist has reported to the Juvenile Justice Board that the CICL is found to be having capacity of understanding the maturity of the facts what are being done, therefore reported to the Juvenile Justice Board accordingly.

3. Based on this, the Juvenile Justice Board had referred though the physical age of the CICL is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days, but he is having mental capacity as if an adult and committed the offences alleged. Hence found him necessary to be tried by the Special Court as if an adult. Accordingly passed the impugned order referring the petitioner to be tried by the learned Special Court. This order is under challenge in this petition.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State and perused the materials placed before the Court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner is found to be aged 17 years 10 months 09 days, therefore he is a child as per Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board but not by the Special Court. But the Juvenile Justice Board has referred the petitioner to be tried before the Special Court. Therefore, prays to set aside this order by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned HCGP supported the order impugned and submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board is vested with power to make preliminary assessm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document