Neeraj v. State Of Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:009026 CRM-10452-2023 in/and Criminal Revision-2921-2022 Date of decision: January 23rd, 2024 Neeraj .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) CRM-10452-2023 Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the main case.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Hearing of the main case is advanced to today and the same is taken on board for final disposal.

CRR-2921-2022 Petitioner is impugning the order dated 21.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, setting aside the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, whereby while referring the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhajjar, the petitioner was, prima facie, declared a minor. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 29.04.2022, the petitioner was declared a minor by the learned ACJM, Jhajjar; subsequently complainant filed an application before the Board for conducting process of inquiry qua the age of petitioner. Vide order dated 04.08.2022 learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jhajjar, dismissed PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.31 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-10452-2023 in/and -2CRR-2921-2022 the application of the complainant being not maintainable by observing that the Board had no power to review the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Court of parallel jurisdiction.

3. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant, thereafter, impugned the said order before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, who without even issuing notice to the petitioner, remanded it back to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide it afresh, hence, a grave prejudice had been caused to him for which the order deserved to be set aside. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not a case, wherein some adverse order was passed against the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Furthermore, after the case was remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, it was decided on merits and that too after hearing both the parties. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner was clearly bereft of any merit, more so when the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board declining the prayer of the petitioner to be declared a juvenile had already been impugned by him before the Appellate Court.

5.

As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant revision is clearly bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed since the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties and in their presence.

6.

Ordered accordingly.

January 23rd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.31 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh