2026:MHC:44

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23173 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.20102 of 2025

Minor David Abilash

rep. through his natural guardian/mother

Angel Jane Vanitha ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Koodal Pudur Police Station,

Madurai District.

(Crime No.169 of 2024)

2.Adhithya ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the entire records connected with the case against the petitioner in J.C.No.460 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai and quash the same as

illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Keerthi Prasanna For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

Seeking quashment of the impugned charge sheet in J.C.No.460 of

2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai as against the petitioner, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

2. Mr.M.Keerthi Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile, who is represented through his natural guardian/mother and that the FIR in Crime No.169 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’].

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(45) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.J. Act’], which defines the term ‘petty offences’ as offences for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years. The learned counsel further contended that for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 of the IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed would fall within the category of ‘petty offences’ as defined under the said Act.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Sections 14(2) and 14(4) of the J.J. Act, submitted that when Section 14(2) is read in conjunction with Section 14(4) of the J.J. Act, it is evident that the inquiry in a petty offence case against a child, who has been produced before the Juvenile Justice Board after apprehension, ought to be concluded by the Juvenile Justice Board within a maximum period of four months from the date of first production of the child and in the event the inquiry is not concluded within the said period of four months, the same may be extended by a further period of two months, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

5. He further submitted that in the instant case, the child was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for the first time on 28.05.2025 after apprehension and therefore, the period prescribed under Section 14(2) of the J.J.Act expired on 28.09.2025 and even the extended period contemplated under Section 14(4) of the J.J. Act expired on

28.11.2025 and despite the same, the Juvenile Justice Board has not concluded the inquiry and has kept the same pending endlessly.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in R.Sembarithi v. The State, rep. by its Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station and another¹, wherein this Court dealt with a similar case and quashed the pending juvenile case. He also relied upon yet another judgment of this Court in xxxxx v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station and another², wherein this Court, after considering the aforesaid provisions of Section 14 of the J.J. Act, quashed the juvenile case. The relevant portion of the said judgments is extracted hereunder:

“2.The petitioner was implicated as one of the accused in the impugned FIR. The FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment o