THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15705 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.1700011 of 2018 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

2. The brief facts fo the case are that the complainant, alleges that his son-in-law, Chandrakant, is illegally detaining his grandchildren, Master Hitesh Yadav (13) and Ms. Nandini (11), and preventing them from meeting him. After his daughter's untimely death in the year 2009, Chandrakant started restricting the children's interactions with their grandparents. The complainant claims that Chandrakant is not providing proper care, nutrition, or education to the children, and has become mentally unstable. The children are often locked indoors, and when they do attend school, they are frequently hungry.

3. Heard Sri M. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appearing on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, as the biological father of Master Hitesh Yadav and Nandini, has been taking care of the children with love and affection since their mother's demise in the year 2009. The penal provision under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, invoked in the charge sheet, is not applicable in this case, as the amendment to the Act in 2021, which came into force on September 1, 2022, renders it inapplicable to the present circumstances. The petitioner's situation as a single parent, taking care of the children after his wife's death, does not warrant prosecution under the said section. Furthermore, the case is civil in nature, involving non-cognizable offences, and the allegations are baseless and lack evidence. The averments in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which require trial. Further, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a review of the material on record, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act constitutes a non- cognizable offence following the amendment in the year 2021. However, since the case was registered in the year 2017, the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act was, at the time, categorized as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Therefore, no prior permission was required to register the case in the year 2017, rendering the petitioner’s argument baseless.

7. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner/accused is the biological father of the children and, as such, qualifies as a biological parent. It is argued that under the amended act, if certain actions of the biological parents are beyond their control, the offence does not apply. However, the failure of biological parents to ensure their children receive education and proper nourishment cannot reasonably be considered as beyond the parents' control. This matter requires trial to establish the facts. Consequently, this contention of the petitioner lacks merit as well. In view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, the petition is deemed fit for dismissal.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_