While directing the transfer of a criminal case to the Juvenile Police Unit, the Karnataka High Court has held that the police would not have the jurisdiction to register a crime and investigate the matter of a juvenile if it is a petty offence.

The Petitioner had approached the High Court, calling in question the proceedings arising out of a criminal case registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354B and 34 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “As observed hereinabove, Section 324 of the IPC which is alleged against the petitioner is punishable up to 3 years or with fine or both. If it is punishable upto 3 years, it relates a petty offence as defined under the Act and if it is a petty offence, the Police would not get jurisdiction to register the crime and investigate into the matter of a juvenile. Juvenile would be an accused below the age of 18 years committing petty offence. The crime ought to have been registered before the juvenile police or the Child Welfare Police Officer in the Special Juvenile Police Unit.”

Advocate Raghava P. represented the Petitioner while Addl. Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident in question happened 20 days prior to the petitioner attaining the age of 18 years. One Maridevaru was excavating land by removing soil using a JCB. The complainant opposed the same by stating that the land was in dispute and thE excavation should be stopped. On the said date, as alleged by the complainant, despite his resistance, one Kavitha pulled his collar and dragged him near the village circle, at which point in time the other accused, including Maridevaru, Lalitha, Raghavendra (petitioner) and Shekara allegedly approached the complainant with metal rods and stones. The complainant ran, however, the accused followed and assaulted him.

The police conducted the investigation and the police filed a charge sheet against all the accused including the petitioner. The issue in the lis pertained to the very jurisdiction of the concerned Court to try the petitioner. It was on this plea, challenging the charge sheet, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the offence against the petitioner was the one punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and he was a juvenile at the time of the incident, as he was 17 years and 10 months old. The Bench explained that the Offence under Section 324 is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or with fine or with both and it punishes any person voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. “Therefore, if the definitions under the Act for heinous offence and petty offence are juxtaposed with Section 324 of the IPC, the unmistakable inference is that the petitioner can be tried only for petty offence as defined under the Act and not for heinous offence”, it stated.

Referring to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, the Bench noticed that Rule 8 mandates that no First Information Report shall be registered against a juvenile except where the offence alleged is heinous, whether it is committed by a child solitarily or jointly with adults. The Bench explained that the Rules are clear that a juvenile can be tried by a regular Court only if he is alleged of commission of a heinous offence. “The usage of the word “such offence” in the section cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read in tandem with the first instance, as it is trite law that interpretation of the word should be with the company that it keeps i.e., the words that are found along with a particular word which has fallen for interpretation”, it added.

The Bench stated that Juvenile would be an accused below the age of 18 years committing petty offence. The crime ought to have been registered before the juvenile police or the Child Welfare Police Officer in the Special Juvenile Police Unit. It held, “ If trial is permitted against the petitioner/accused No.3/juvenile of 17 years and 10 months at the time of commission of the offence, it would be permitting the jurisdictional police or the Court to try an accused without jurisdiction, as answer to jurisdiction can be either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but can never be a ‘may be.”

Thus, allowing the petition in part, the Bench ordered the transfer of the entire matter to the Juvenile Police Unit for a fresh investigation.

Cause Title: Raghavendra H.M. v. State Of Karnataka(Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:6025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Raghava P.

Respondent: Addl. Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha, Advocate S.A. Saboor

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice M Nagaprasanna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.