Cases Wrongly Marked To Court Jurisdictionally Must Be Returned To Principal Principal District & Sessions Judge For Fresh Allocation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ordered issuance of an administrative circular directing that if any matter is inadvertently marked to a Court lacking jurisdiction, the concerned Judicial Officer shall immediately return the file to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for its allocation to the competent Court.

The Court was considering a Petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 seeking setting aside of a judgement passed by Sessions Judge on the ground that the said judgment was rendered by a Court not vested with the jurisdiction to decide the same.

The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, "Be that as it may, this Court is also of the opinion that, even if the case was inadvertently marked to the concerned Sessions Judge due to an administrative or clerical oversight, the Presiding Officer, being aware of the statutory limits of jurisdiction, ought to have returned the file to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge for being placed before the competent Children‟s Court."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Satyam Thareja while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aashneet Singh.

Facts of the Case

It was the Petitioner's case that Section 101(1) of the JJ Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Committee or the Board under the JJ Act may prefer an appeal before the Children's Court. Further, Section 2(20) of the JJ Act defines “Children's Court” to mean a court established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, or a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is contended that where such special courts have not been designated, the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try offences under the JJ Act may function as a Children's Court; however, in Delhi, specific Children's Courts have already been constituted and notified.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court, after carefully examining whether the passing of the impugned judgment by a Court lacking jurisdiction has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner, which warrants interference under Section 102 of the JJ Act, held, ".....The record in the present case reveals that the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge concerned the issue of whether the child in conflict with law (petitioner herein) was to be tried as an adult. It is not in dispute that Children‟s Courts have been duly notified in Delhi for adjudicating cases pertaining to offences against children or violation of child rights. In view of the statutory scheme and the notifications issued in view thereof, it is evident that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge–02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, was not vested with jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals under Section 101 of the JJ Act, which lie exclusively to the Children‟s Court. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2023, having been passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside on that limited ground...."

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Atul Lakra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025:DHC:9661)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Satyam Thareja, Advocate Shaurya Katoch, Advocate Shikhar Yadav

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Aashneet Singh

Click here to read/ download Order