Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
ASMA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 222 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C, SRI.E.C.POULOSE
For the Respondents: SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI, SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M., SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE, SHRI.JERRY PETER, SMT.RIA VARGHESE
The court confirmed that for charges under the juvenile justice law, there must be actual control over the child involved; otherwise, prosecution cannot proceed.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 239, 438, and 442 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 75 - Revision petition against rejection to alter charge - Accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and inflicted harm on complainant’s minor child - Legality of the Magistrate's findings upheld, stating persons must have actual charge or control over the child for prosecution under Section 75. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Prosecution's requirement - Designated individuals must have actual control over a child to invoke Section 75; findings reveal that the accused did not have such control. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
Direct challenge to the order by a defacto complainant against the refusal to incorporate charge under the Juvenile Justice Act rooted in alleged unlawful assembly and physical assault on a minor.
Findings of Court:
The learned Magistrate's order correctly interpreted the parameters for invoking charges under relevant laws against the individuals.
Issues: Whether individuals accused had actual charge or control over the minor for the allegations made; legality of rejecting the alteration of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that without actual control over a child, charges under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot stand, confirming the Magistrate's order as justifiable.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition challenges rejection to alter charge. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of unlawful assembly and assault on minor. (Para 2) |
| 3. magistrate's findings on control over child upheld. (Para 4) |
| 4. court affirms necessity of actual control for prosecutions. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, on 31.01.2025 in CMP No.3634/2024 in CC No.455/2019 rejecting the request of the defacto complainant in that case to alter the charge under Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), incorporating the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , is under challenge in this revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the by the defacto complainant.
2. The case arose out of the alleged act of accused Nos.1 to 6, who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and mounted physical assault upon the defacto complainant and her sons at about 6.15 p.m on 07.04.2019. During the course of commission of the aforesaid crime, the accused are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the minor son of the defacto complainant and inflicted voluntary hurt upon him.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for incorporating the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , stating the reason that the accused persons were not having actual charge or control over the child, who is said to have been assaulted. There is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid finding of the learned Magistrate.
5. It is well settled that the prosecution under Section
75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , could be resorted to only against those persons who are having actual charge or control over the child alleged to have been assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or wilfully neglected.
6. As far as the present case is concerned, even the prosecution records would reveal that the offenders cannot be termed as persons having actual charge or control over the child alleged to have been assaulted by them. Therefore, the challenge in this revision petition is devoid of merit.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
