Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when a child in conflict with law is directed to be tried as an adult, the trial must be held by the Children's Court under Section 18(3) read with Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The trial cannot be shifted to the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, merely because the CBI investigated the case.

Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the CBI's petition to transfer the trial of the juvenile accused in the 2017 murder of a seven-year-old student in a Gurugram school. The CBI sought to move the trial from the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children's Court, Gurugram, to the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, or, in the alternative, to a Children's Court at Panchkula.

The Court held, “The trial of respondent No. 2, who has been directed to be tried as an adult, is to be held by the Children's Court having jurisdiction under Section 18(3) read with Section 1(4) of the JJ Act. This requirement is a sine qua non, and the power of transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to take the trial to a Court of a different character.”

Prince (name withheld), a Class II student, was found murdered in the ground-floor washroom of his school in Gurugram on September 8, 2017. Gurugram Police arrested a bus conductor the same day. The investigation was transferred to the CBI later that month.

In November 2017, the CBI apprehended Bholu (name withheld), a Class XI student of the same school, who was below 18 on the date of the incident. The CBI filed a charge sheet against him under Section 302 IPC before the Children's Court, Gurugram, and the conductor was discharged.

Bholu's preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was litigated up to the Supreme Court. In 2017, The Juvenile Justice Board directed that he be tried as an adult.

In 2018, the High Court set aside that order and sent the matter back for a fresh assessment. In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the remand in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu. On reassessment, the Board again held that he must be tried as an adult. In 2023, the High Court dismissed his challenge and directed the trial to be expedited.

The CBI's transfer petition, filed in 2018, remained pending throughout.

The CBI argued that, once the CBI took over the investigation, the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, which hears CBI cases from all of Haryana, had exclusive jurisdiction.

The case of the adult accused arising from the same FIR, including police officials, is pending at Panchkula, and the evidence in the two cases is intertwined. Moving the record and sending the prosecution team to Gurugram was causing inconvenience.

Relying on Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, it was argued that juvenile justice law does not override a special enactment.

The State had no objection to the transfer. The victim's father supported the petition, arguing that both trials should be held by the same court.

The accused opposed the petition and argued that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act overrides all other laws, that the CBI notifications concern only investigation, and that the CBI Court lacks the safeguards in Section 19 of the JJ Act. He also pointed out that the CBI had itself filed the charge sheet at Gurugram, and that a substantial number of witnesses had already been examined.

Special Judge, CBI Has No Jurisdiction

The Court examined the Haryana Government notification of February 8, 2012, on which the CBI relied. It noted that the notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appoints the CBI Court at Panchkula as Special Judge only for PC Act offences, and for conspiracies, attempts or abetments of those offences.

The judge pointed that It does not cover every case the CBI investigates. Section 4(3) of the PC Act did not help either, since it presupposes a trial for a PC Act offence, and Bholu is charged only under Section 302 IPC.

The DSPE Act notifications of September 2017 only extended the CBI's power to investigate and said nothing about the forum of trial. Relying on Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, the Court held that although the CBI steps into the shoes of the State police as investigating and prosecuting agency, the forum of trial does not change on that account.

JJ Act Prevails

The Court noted that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act opens with a non obstante clause and expressly covers “prosecution” of children in conflict with law. Under Section 18(3), the trial of a child directed to be tried as an adult goes to the Children's Court, and “the legislature has not left the choice of forum to the investigating agency.”

It pointed out that Section 19 requires the Children's Court to ensure a child-friendly atmosphere, an individual care plan, placement in a place of safety until the age of 21 and annual follow-up reports.

Relying on Thirumoorthy v. State (2024) and Sagar v. State of Haryana (2026), where non-compliance with Section 19 vitiated the trial, the Court warned that a trial before the CBI Court would put “the very foundation of the proceedings” in jeopardy. It would defeat the early and effective trial the CBI was seeking.

The Court followed its earlier decision in NIA v. Amritpal Singh (2022), where a juvenile's trial was kept with the Children's Court even though Section 13(1) of the NIA Act expressly vests scheduled offences in the Special Court. It also referred to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision in NIA v. Abid Mushtaq Mir (2024), which took the same view.

The Court said the present case stood on “an even stronger footing”, since no statute vests the trial of a CBI-investigated Section 302 IPC case in the Special Judge, CBI.

The Court distinguished Yakub Memon on the ground that TADA had lapsed before Section 1(4) was inserted into the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in 2006.

TADA was a special statute with its own overriding clause.Here, the exception allowing a child to be tried as an adult operates within the JJ Act itself.

The Court added that the principle that a special law prevails over a general law actually favours the juvenile, since the JJ Act is the special law on children while the IPC and CrPC are general laws.

It also held that the State's no-objection could not confer jurisdiction, relying on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan: a defect of jurisdiction “cannot be cured even by consent of parties.”

Transfer Limited To Another Children's Court

Relying on Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that the requirement of a Children's Court under Section 18(3) is a sine qua non, not a mere territorial arrangement. Section 407 CrPC can therefore be used only to move the trial from one Children's Court to another.

The Court considered the alternative prayer for transfer to a Children's Court at Panchkula on its merits, and rejected it under the tests in Abdul Nazar Madani, Nahar Singh Yadav and Maneka Sanjay Gandhi.

Justice Batra observed, "no case for transfer is made out. No material has been placed before this Court to show that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had at Gurugram. There is no allegation of bias against the trial Court, nor is it alleged that the State machinery is acting in collusion with the accused. No question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise in the trial."

Trial Already Progressed 

The judge also pointed that, "The occurrence took place in a school at Gurugram and the FIR...was registered there. The family of the deceased, respondent No. 2 and his family, and the school are all located there. The trial is going on before the Children Court at Gurugram. The CBI did not seek stay of the proceedings before the trial Court, and the trial has thus progressed for several years.."

The occurrence is of the year 2017. Any transfer at this advanced stage would only delay the trial further. It would not be in the interest of the prosecution, the family of the deceased. The support extended by the complainant to the petition does not alter this position, it added.

"The joint appreciation of evidence sought by him is barred by Section 23 of the JJ Act, and an early conclusion of the trial at Gurugram would serve the cause of the family of the deceased far better than a transfer at this stage," the Court said. 

Separate trials

The Court noted that Section 23 of the JJ Act bars joint proceedings of a child with a person who is not a child, so the two trials must be held separately wherever they take place. The father's wish for a joint appreciation of evidence was therefore legally barred, and an early verdict at Gurugram would serve the family “far better”.

Hence, the petition was dismissed. The Children's Court, Gurugram, was directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within six months, subject to cooperation by the parties.

"The CBI shall ensure the presence of its witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial The trial Court may record the evidence of official and outstation witnesses through video conferencing in accordance with the applicable rules," It added.

Before parting, the Court placed on record "its deep appreciation for the diligent assistance rendered by my Secretary Mr. Waseem Ansari and Law Researcher Ms. Shruti Dang in going through the voluminous record and compiling the relevant statutory provisions and judgments on the point, which greatly facilitated the consideration of the issues involved."

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner-CBI.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1-State of Haryana.

Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (JCL Bholu).

Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Tags: