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.
by Maharukh Adenwalla* and Gayatri Virmani**
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
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.
A Child-in-conflict with law (CIL) was granted bail considering that she was a young girl; her family was poor; she had less understanding to distinguish between right and wrong and her family atmosphere was good. The Court also discussed situations in which a CIL could be denied bail even in bailable offences as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act challenging the order passed by
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. in a recent case affirmed that Trial Court does not have power
“A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with an issue on joint proceedings, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., held that a proceeding where
Bombay High Court: M.G. Sewlikar, J., held that, in terms of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Supreme Court: In a bid to clear the air over the applicability of and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J. allowed the revision petition filed setting aside the order dated 10-2-2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate,
Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed the revision application as the order of the Juvenile Justice Board needed no interference. The
Karnataka High Court: K.N. Phaneendra, J. while allowing the present appeal against the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. declined to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner even while holding that Section 19(1) of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the State assailing the Judgment passed by Principal
Delhi High Court: Chander Shekhar, J. refused to interfere with the order of the Juvenile Justice Board whereby it had directed that the two