The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the Juvenile Justice Board’s determination of age under the Juvenile Justice Act is binding on trial forums, and proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the accused claims to have been a minor at the time of offence. The Court emphasized that once the JJB exercises its statutory power under Section 15 to refer a case for trial as an adult, the trial must proceed in the designated Children’s Court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Rahul Verma, is accused in Case Crime/FIR No. 680/2016 registered at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The alleged offence occurred on 25.10.1999. The applicant claims he was born on 01.01.1999, making him 10 years and 9 months old at the time of the incident, and therefore a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Key Facts
- The applicant was arrested and charged in connection with the offence committed on 25.10.1999
- The charge sheet was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on 23.01.2017
- The JJB conducted an age determination inquiry and issued an order on 29.08.2017, finding the applicant to be more than 16 years of age at the time of the offence
- Pursuant to Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the JJB referred the case to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult
- The case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh
- Charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 14.06.2019
- The statement of PW-1 was recorded before the Sessions Court
- The applicant filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 02.02.2026, seeking quashing of proceedings or transfer to the JJB
Procedural History
- 25.10.1999: Alleged offence occurred
- 23.01.2017: Charge sheet filed before Juvenile Justice Board
- 29.08.2017: JJB order determining age >16 years and referral to Children’s Court under Section 15 JJ Act
- 14.06.2019: Charges framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh
- Prior to 25.06.2026: Trial proceedings ongoing, including recording of witness evidence
- 02.02.2026: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
- 25.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant’s Position: The applicant contends he was a juvenile on the date of offence (25.10.1999) and therefore entitled to trial before the JJB. He argues that the JJB’s order dated 29.08.2017 is erroneous and that the trial before the Sessions Court is illegal. He seeks quashing of proceedings or transfer back to the JJB.
Respondent’s Position: The State contends that the JJB, after due inquiry, determined the applicant’s age to be above 16 years and lawfully referred the matter to the Children’s Court under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The trial is therefore validly proceeding before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, designated as the Children’s Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks:
- Quashing of all proceedings in Special Trial Court No. 79/2017
- Quashing of the summoning order dated 02.02.2017 and charge sheet dated 23.01.2017
- Alternatively, direction to transfer the trial from the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether the trial of an accused can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the accused disputes the Juvenile Justice Board’s age determination under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, when the Board has already referred the case for trial as an adult.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the principle that the Juvenile Justice Act is a welfare legislation and any doubt regarding age must be resolved in favour of the accused. He argued that the JJB’s order dated 29.08.2017 was not based on sufficient medical or documentary evidence and that the applicant’s date of birth (01.01.1999) is established. He contended that the trial before the Sessions Court is void ab initio and that the High Court must intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the JJB is a statutory body vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine age under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The order dated 29.08.2017 is final and binding on all courts. The trial before the Children’s Court, designated as the Special Judge, POCSO Act, is in strict compliance with the Act. The applicant’s remedy, if any, lies in appeal or revision, not in invoking the High Court’s inherent powers to quash proceedings already at an advanced stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly Section 15, which empowers the JJB to determine age and, if the child is found to be above 16 years and the offence is heinous, to refer the case for trial as an adult before the Children’s Court.
"The Juvenile Justice Board, after conducting an inquiry under Section 15, has the exclusive authority to determine age and decide whether the case should be tried as an adult. Once such a determination is made and the case is referred, the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court is triggered and no court can override it by quashing proceedings."
The Court noted that the charge sheet was filed before the JJB, which conducted the requisite inquiry and issued a reasoned order on 29.08.2017. The trial court has since framed charges and recorded evidence. The applicant’s challenge to the age determination is not a ground for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially when the proceedings are at an advanced stage.
The Court further held that the Children’s Court, designated as the Special Judge, POCSO Act, is the only competent forum to try the case after referral under Section 15. The trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, is procedurally irregular, not because the JJB’s order is invalid, but because the case was initially placed in the wrong court within the same judicial hierarchy.
The Court declined to quash the proceedings, as that would amount to a nullification of a statutory determination by a specialized tribunal. Instead, it directed the applicant to move an application before the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to the Special Judge, POCSO Act, designated as the Children’s Court.
The Verdict
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Court directed the applicant to file an application before the learned Sessions Judge for transfer of the trial from the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, to the Special Judge, POCSO Act (designated as Children’s Court), Pratapgarh. The Sessions Judge was directed to decide the transfer application within four weeks. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Determination by JJB Is Final for Forum Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must treat the JJB’s order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act as conclusive on the question of trial forum
- Challenges to age determination must be raised before the JJB or through statutory appeals, not via Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Once a case is referred to the Children’s Court, the Sessions Court lacks jurisdiction to try it, even if the accused is later found to be a minor
Transfer, Not Quashing, Is the Correct Remedy
-
If a case is wrongly placed before a Sessions Court after JJB referral, the remedy is not quashing but transfer to the designated Children’s Court
-
Applications for transfer must be filed before the Sessions Judge, not the High Court under Section 482
-
Courts must avoid quashing proceedings at advanced stages where statutory mechanisms exist to correct procedural errors
-
Always verify the JJB’s order date and findings before filing any challenge
-
Do not rely on age claims alone; the JJB’s determination is binding unless set aside by higher authority
-
In POCSO cases, ensure the trial is conducted before the designated Special Judge, not the regular Sessions Court
