If consensual relationship cases are segregated from the pending cases, it will be easy to deal with them and in appropriate cases, the Court can also exercise its jurisdiction and quash the proceedings, if the proceedings are ultimately going to be against the interest and future of the children involved in those cases and it is found to be an abuse of process of Court.
Bombay High Court explained that trying a child below 18 years before Juvenile Justice Board is a rule and trying a child above 16 years as an adult before Regular Court is an exception.
Allahabad High Court said that the FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the accused and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also not the eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on hearsay basis, the bail of the accused has been rejected.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that revisionary power under Juvenile Justice Act vests only with the High Court
by Namit Saxena†
The Court held that the employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service.
The petition was filed challenging the vires of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2021 to the extent that the word ‘Court’ is replaced with ‘District Magistrate’
Bombay High Court: In a case relating to an article published by Mid-Day, pursuant to the order of the instant
With 1263 judgments delivered; three Chief Justices of India taking turns to lead the judiciary; a number of judges retiring and a
A curious case presented itself before the Karnataka HC wherein they deliberated over an agreement for adoption entered between the biological parents and adoptive parents, when the child was still unborn.
Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed against the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) and
Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act challenging the order passed by
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by a father (‘petitioner’) seeking for setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice
Bombay High Court: In deciding the instant bail application filed by a juvenile applicant by invoking Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. in a recent case affirmed that Trial Court does not have power
Karnataka High Court: Hemant Chandangoudar, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned proceedings initiated against alleged offence under Section 80 of
Bombay High Court: M.G. Sewlikar, J., held that, in terms of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Uttaranchal High Court: R.C. Khulbe, J. granted bail in a criminal revision petition moved against the order of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB),
Supreme Court: Upholding the concurrent findings of High Court as well as Sessions Court and Juvenile Justice Board, the Division Bench comprising