IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-251-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 Vashim @ Waseem …..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J . (Oral)

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, assailing the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by learned Special Court, ASJ, (Fast Track) POCSO, Palwal whereby the recommendation dated 13.01.2023 made by the Juvenile Justice Board, Palwal, under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the JJ Act”), directing that the petitioner be tried as an adult, has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was aged above 16 years and below 18 years on the date of occurrence stands accused of committing a heinous offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A, 343, 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Upon completion of preliminary assessment as mandated under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 13.01.2023, recorded a finding that the petitioner possessed the requisite mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence and also had the ability to understand its consequences, whereafter it recommended that the petitioner be tried as an adult.

3. Aggrieved by the said recommendation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Special Court, which after due consideration, affirmed the findings of the Board. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order primarily on the following grounds :

i) that the preliminary assessment conducted by the Board was mechanical;

ii) that Section 15 mandates only a limited and non-

adjudicatory preliminary assessment and not a detailed appreciation of evidence akin to a mini-trial;

iii) that the board failed to adopt a strict and cautious approach before depriving him of the protection of juvenile jurisprudence;

iv) that the Social Investigation Report has been selectively relied upon while ignoring mitigating factors including socio-economic background, susceptibility to peer influence, absence of antecedents and scope for reformation;

v) that the opinion of the psychologist has been treated as conclusive though it is merely advisory in nature and cannot override the beneficial intent of the Act;

5. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the preliminary assessment was carried out strictly in accordance with law, after considering all relevant parameters and that no perversity warranting interference in revision is made out.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and perused the record very carefully.

7. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that Section 15 of the JJ Act does not envisage a roving or full fledged inquiry akin to a trial. The statute mandates a preliminary assessment limited to four specific parameters :

(i) the mental capacity of the child to commit the offence;

(ii) the physical capacity of the child to commit the offence;

(iii) the ability to understand the consequences of the offence:

and (iv) the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed.

8. A perusal of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board reveals that the Board considered the Social Investigation Report, psychological evaluation, the nature and manner of commission of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner and his conduct before and after the incident. The JJ Board recorded specific findings on each of these parameters, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as mechanical. The relevant part of the