Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the age is disputed or uncertain, courts have directed enquiries or medical examinations to ascertain the age, and the complaint should be amended accordingly to reflect the correct status of the accused ["Gutte Srinivas vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Gutte Srinivas vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Swapnil Sharma S/o Yogesh Sharma VS State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Gutte Srinivas vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["Gutte Srinivas vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]
Filing a criminal complaint is a serious step, but when the individual involved is under 18 years old, the process demands special care under India's Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). Missteps in terminology or procedure can lead to delays, referrals, or even dismissal. A common question arises: When we file a criminal complaint against an accused under 18 years of age, how to address him in the Complaint as per law?
This blog post breaks down the legal nuances, drawing from key judicial documents and precedents. Note: This is general information based on legal interpretations and not specific legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The JJ Act shifts the focus from punishment to rehabilitation for those under 18. Standard criminal labels like 'accused' or 'arrested' are avoided to reflect this rehabilitative approach. Instead, use terms such as 'juvenile in conflict with the law', 'apprehended juvenile', or 'apparently a juvenile'. This aligns with the Act's objectives and triggers specialized procedures. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220
For instance, Section 12 of the JJ Act states: When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board... Raju (Minor) VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 952 This blends 'accused' with 'apparently a juvenile', but courts prioritize juvenile status, urging explicit mention of apparent age in complaints.
Using incorrect terms risks adversarial treatment under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), potentially leading to immediate referral to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board).
Unlike adult cases, police handling of juveniles skips routine FIRs or charge-sheets. Rule 11(11) of the JJ Rules, 2007, clarifies: Police are not required to file an FIR or charge-sheet; they record offence details in the daily diary and submit a report on the juvenile's social background, apprehension circumstances, and alleged offence. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220
Courts must inquire into juvenility claims promptly, even at appellate stages: whenever a claim is made that a person was juvenile at the time of the incident, the same has to be considered at the earliest... Ishtikhar VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 2507
FIRs or charge-sheets become mandatory in limited scenarios:- Serious offences like rape or murder. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220- Offences committed jointly with adults. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220
Frivolous claims can be rejected if 'patently absurd or inherently improbable'. Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 931 Age is determined chronologically on the offence date, using birth certificates, school records, or ossification tests. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh VS State of U. P. - 2013 5 Supreme 232
Age disputes frequently arise, especially in sensitive cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Courts scrutinize evidence rigorously.
In one case, conviction was set aside due to doubts over the victim's age (alleged 17 but evidence suggested 18+): radiological reports and ossification tests were key, with the court noting, as per the radiological report... she was aged more than 17 years and below 18 years. Thangaraj Vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 3101 This underscores the need for credible proof in complaints.
Similarly, in a kidnapping and rape appeal, the court acquitted after failing to prove the victim's minority: if two views are possible the view in favour of the accused has to be taken... the age of the victim was above 18. Ossification tests (Ex.P.11) were pivotal. Maharajothi VS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3158
For accused claiming juvenility post-conviction, inquiries are mandated. One judgment directed: Magistrate may as well call upon accused also to lead evidence about his age... Even self-admitted age (18 in complaint) warranted inquiry if later disputed. Pravin @ Shrikrishna Chandrakant Marathe VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 724
These cases highlight: Attach age evidence upfront (matriculation certificate, birth register) to avoid reversals. Courts lean towards juvenility in borderline cases if evidence allows. Pravin @ Shrikrishna Chandrakant Marathe VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 724
To comply:- Explicitly state: The accused, who is apparently a juvenile under 18 years / a juvenile in conflict with the law... and seek JJ Board referral.- Evidence attachment: Birth certificate, school records, or medical reports.- Avoid unqualified 'accused': Qualify to invoke JJ procedures.- Police cases: Ensure social background report over FIR (unless exceptions).- Court role: Decide juvenility first via inquiry (Rule 12 JJ Rules), before merits. Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 931
In private complaints, note potential referral: Courts treat them as triggering inquiry under Section 7A JJ Act. Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 931
Delays in juvenility claims don't bar relief if raised timely. Post-18 claims still qualify if offence date age was under 18. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220
Other sources show age misstatements leading to acquittals, e.g., accused nearing 18 at offence but deemed major by commission date. Palakurla Sai Kumar vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37188Palakurla Sai Kumar vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63733
In POCSO-IPC overlaps, precise age proof is crucial, as seen in rape convictions relying on victim statements corroborated by medical evidence—but overturned on inconsistencies. State of West Bengal VS Sukol Tudu Alias Chhattu - 2018 Supreme(Cal) 926Shailesh VS State of Gujarat - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 783
Addressing juveniles correctly in complaints safeguards rights and ensures procedural compliance under the JJ Act. Shift from 'accused' to juvenile-specific terms, prioritize age evidence, and anticipate JJ Board involvement.
Key Takeaways:- Use 'juvenile in conflict with the law' or 'apparently a juvenile'. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220- No routine FIR; opt for daily diary + background report.- Courts inquire into age first; borderline cases favor juvenility.- Exceptions: Serious crimes or adult co-offenders.- Always document age with reliable proof to prevent disputes.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal expert. This overview draws from precedents like SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220, Raju (Minor) VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 952, Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 931, Ishtikhar VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 2507, and related cases on age verification.
#JuvenileJusticeAct, #CriminalComplaint, #JJBoard
The case under POCSO Act cannot be applied when the offence is committed on a victim ie major girl after she attained 18 years of age. Learned trial Court without any enquiry, decided only the age of applicant as above 18 years, which is bad in law. ... Learned trial Court in its impugned order says that as per written complaint of victim, at the time of lodging FIR victim was aged about 19 years. As per#....
The victim is a minor if her age is calculated as per the date of the offence or as per the date of the complaint. The date of birth of the victim is disclosed from the record as 22.06.2008. Therefore, even if it is taken as on the date of complaint i.e. October, 2024, she is less than 18 years. ... November, 2024 and considered him as an adult, as he has crossed 18 years. The date of offence is October, 2023, and in October, 2023, ....
The victim is a minor if her age is calculated as per the date of the offence or as per the date of the complaint. The date of birth of the victim is disclosed from the record as 22.06.2008. Therefore, even if it is taken as on the date of complaint i.e. October, 2024, she is less than 18 years. ... November, 2024 and considered him as an adult, as he has crossed 18 years. The date of offence is October, 2023, and in October, 2023, ....
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and answered that as per the complaint under Ex.P-1, her age was 17 years and it is also corroborated by P.W-10 Dr. ... Therefore, as on date of Ex.P-1 she had completed 15 years 6 months plus three years. As per the radiological report issued by P.W- 10 Dr Sureshkanth under Ex.P-6 she was aged more than 17 years and below 18 years. ... In the presence of the mo....
It is well settled law that if two views are possible the view in favour of the accused has to be taken into account, thereby this Court has taken view in favour of the accused that the victim was aged above 18 years . ... During investigation the investigation officer admitted the victim in the hospital and the doctor who examined the victim has conducted ossification test and issued Ex.P.11 and as per Ex.P.11 the age of the victim was above 18 #HL_....
In the said complaint the accused No.1 is my husband, accused No.2 is my mother in law and accused No:3 to 5 are my sister in laws (i.e. sisters of my husband). ... MALTESH METAGODLI AGE 36 YEARS, OCC : NIL, R/O: PURAD ONI, HAVERI, DISTRICT : HAVERI-581201 2 (ADDRESS IS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN ... SAVITA W/O ANIL KAMBAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNT ANALYST, R/O: NO: 133, M.S. ... #H....
The accused would be completing 18 years of age as on 18.03.2018. As per the recitals of the charge sheet the commission of offence occurred till November, 2018. Therefore, as on the date of commission of offence, the petitioner cannot be taken to be a minor. Therefore, he is a major by that time. ... Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that at the time of commission of the offence for the first time, the juvenile is at the age of 18#HL_END....
The accused would be completing 18 years of age as on 18.03.2018. As per the recitals of the charge sheet the commission of offence occurred till November, 2018. Therefore, as on the date of commission of offence, the petitioner cannot be taken to be a minor. Therefore, he is a major by that time. ... Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that at the time of commission of the offence for the first time, the juvenile is at the age of 18#HL_END....
GEETA W/O APPASAB DESAI AGE.51 YEARS, OCC. ... SHRI NANDEESH S/O SHANKAR KORI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ... OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR NON-PROSECUTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 336/2017 DATED 25.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF VIII p style ... FOR NON-PROSECUTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 335/2017 DATED 25.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF VIII J.M.F.C. ... The said - 9 - observation also runs contrary to the order of the trial Court ....
GEETA W/O APPASAB DESAI AGE.51 YEARS, OCC. ... SHRI NANDEESH S/O SHANKAR KORI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ... OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR NON-PROSECUTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 336/2017 DATED 25.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF VIII p style ... FOR NON-PROSECUTION PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 335/2017 DATED 25.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF VIII J.M.F.C. ... The said - 9 - observation also runs contrary to the order of the trial Court ....
6. Search & Seizure Operations. How to undertake search and seizure operations? - Appropriate Authorities hold the right to enter and search at all reasonable times any Genetic Laboratory / Genetic Counselling Centre / Ultrasonography Centre which is suspected to have contravened the Act and examine all registers, documents, receipts, books, pamphlets, advertisements or machines and other equipment, and seize and seal these, If the AA believes that these are likely to furnish evidence related to a commission of offence [Section 30 (1) and Rule 12]” … …… As per section 28 of PCPNDT Act t....
In the written complaint she stated the age of the accused was 19 years. She could not find the wearing apparels of the victim in Court.
The Trial Court, therefore, observed that it was admitted by the applicant-accused that his age was 18 years and, therefore, the said fact need not be proved. However, during the arguments, the accused has pleaded that he is minor. In the said complaint dated 19th September 1996, the accused gave his age as 18 years. The accused gave a complaint against some villagers to the police regarding assault against him by them, which was treated as non-cognizable complaint.
Moreover it is not necessary that the complainant who is at age of 75 years old file the complaint in the court because at the age of 75 years old file the complaint in the court because at the age of 75 years it is not possible for an injured to appear on each and every date in the court. It is pertinent to mention her that if there was any conspiracy among Shri Narayan, Bhuri Devi and the complainant Satyabir then in the complaint it could be mentioned that Shri Narayan saved Bhuri Devi from the clutches of assailants but here it did not happen but they only deposed the f....
5) was submitted on behalf of the appellant who claimed that the case should be tried before the Juvenile Court. The accused in the said application claimed that the applicant is illiterate and therefore, School Leaving Certificate is not available and therefore cannot be submitted to the learned trial Court and it was further claimed that his birth was also not registered and therefore the record from the Birth and Death Register related to the accused's birth date was also not available and consequently that was also not placed on record and thus the application was not supported by any ev....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
