IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

247 CRR-166-2026 (O&M)

Decided on : 13.02.2026 XXXXX ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

The petitioner herein is admittedly a juvenile, who is child-in-

conflict-with-law, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only. The petitioner is facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and he is being tried by learned Children’s Court.

2. Before the abovesaid Court, the petitioner moved an application for declaring him juvenile, while claiming that on the date of commission of offence, he was below the age of 16 years. However, vide order dated 11.12.2025, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, the learned Children’s Court/Additional Sessions Judge Sonipat dismissed the abovementioned application while observing that for want of specific time of birth of petitioner, he cannot be treated to be a juvenile below the age of

16 years on the date of occurrence.

3. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4. Heard.

5. The record has been perused carefully.

6. A perusal of record shows that the learned Children’s Court has accepted this contention of petitioner that his date of birth is 28.07.2007. However, swayed by the date of FIR, which is eventually 28.07.2023, the learned Children’s Court observed that for want of any proof with regard to time of birth of petitioner, he cannot be treated to be a child-in-conflict-with-

law.

7. With regard to abovementioned observations of learned Children’s Court, the most significant fact to be taken into consideration is that although the FIR in the present case is dated 28.07.2023, but vide abovementioned FIR, the incident/offence which had occurred on 27.07.2023 was reported. Since the offence had taken place on 27.07.2023, by any standard the petitioner whose date of birth is 28.07.2007 cannot be treated to be a child not below the age of 16 years. In fact, on 27.07.2023 by every standard, the petitioner had not completed the age of 16 years.

8. In view of abovementioned observations, once on the date of occurrence the petitioner was below the age of 16 years, he cannot be tried by the learned Children’s Court. Thus, finding merit in the present Revision Petition, the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Children’s Court with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of observations made hereinabove.

9.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

13.02.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No