JJ Rules | Regular FIR Can't Be Lodged Against Juveniles For 'Serious Offences': Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against 2 Minors

The Allahabad High Court has observed that registration of a regular First Information Report (FIR) against Juveniles for "serious offences" is impermissible as per Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.

The Court thus quashed the entire criminal proceedings initiated against two juveniles for the alleged offenses of 'Aggravated Criminal Intimidation' [Section 351(3)] and 'Wrongful Restraint' [Section 126 (2)].

A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that Rule 8 of the JJ Rules 2016, permits registration of an FIR against a child only where a heinous offence is alleged to have been committed by the child or where the offence is alleged to have been committed jointly with adults.

In other cases involving children in conflict with law, the bench noted, the police are required to record the information in the general daily diary, prepare a social background report in Form 1 and forward it to the Juvenile Justice Board, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

"Registration of regular First Information Report against the applicants was legally impermissible", the Court held.

Case in brief

An FIR was lodged on January 11, 2025, by a woman employed at a bank. She inter alia alleged that the cousin of one of the applicants-juveniles regularly visited the bank where she worked and that the applicants would accompany and tease her while she was returning home.

The applicants contended that both were 17 years old on the date of the alleged incident and on the date of registration of the FIR.

They therefore claimed the protection available to children in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Their counsel submitted that the allegations pertained to a personal dispute after the alleged breakup of the complainant with the cousin of one of the applicants. It was argued that the applicants had been unnecessarily implicated in criminal proceedings arising out of that dispute.

The applicants further contended that the offences alleged against them were serious offences and did not fall within the category of heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice framework.

They argued that the police had registered a regular FIR and conducted the investigation without following the special procedure prescribed for children in conflict with law.

It was also submitted that the investigation had not been conducted by a Child Welfare Police Officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit, as required under the applicable statutory framework.

High Court's observations

Examining Rule 8 of JJ Model Rules, 2016, the High Court observed that the Rule makes it clear that an FIR cannot be registered in cases involving petty and serious offences alleged against a child in conflict with law, as had happened in the present acse.

It further observed that because the investigation was also conducted in violation of the statutory safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Model Rules, the subsequent proceedings were vitiated.

The Court also found that the Juvenile Justice Board, while taking cognizance of the offences, had failed to examine whether the mandatory safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Model Rules had been complied with.

It observed that the impugned cognizance order reflected no judicial satisfaction regarding compliance with Rule 8.

"In the considered opinion of this Court, once the applicants were admittedly juvenile and the offences alleged against them fell within the category of 'serious offences', registration of regular FIR itself was contrary to Rule 8 of the Model Rules, 2016", the Court observed.

The Court further held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the Court's process and defeat the object of the Juvenile Justice Act, which is a beneficial and reformative legislation.

Thus, allowing the application, the High Court quashed the impugned police investigation report/charge-sheet, the cognizance and summoning order and the criminal proceedings in the case pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur.

However, the Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicants.

It left the competent authority at liberty to take appropriate steps afresh in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Advocates Abhay Pratap Singh and Sandeep Kumar Sonkar appeared for the applicants