R. Nijanthan vs The State

Honourable Mr. Justice S. Tamilvanan

This criminal revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the order, dated 16.05.2011 made in Cr.M.P. No. 2117 of 2011 in C.C. No. 83 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

It is seen that the petitioner / accused is facing charges u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, Section 506 (i) IPC and Section 4 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act before the Court below. He filed the aforesaid Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2009 u/s 2 (k) and 7 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to transfer the case to the Juvenile Board for trial.

Mr. D.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence. However, no document was marked by the petitioner herein before the Court below.

In the typed set relating to the revision, a Birth Certificate is available, wherein the name of the petitioner is not available, only the father''s name Ravi and mother''s name Dhanalakshmi are available and the date of birth is stated as 05.09.1990. The complaint was given on 31.12.2008 and the occurrence had taken place nearly one year prior to the date of the complaint. There is no reason as to why this Birth Certificate has not been produced before the Court below to establish the date of birth of the petitioner herein and further, as the name of child is not available in the birth certificate, the Court cannot ignore that there is every possibility that it may be birth certificate of the younger brother of the petitioner herein.

It is an admitted fact that the victim girl is having a child and as per the DNA test, it has been established that the child was born to the defacto-complainant, Chithirai Selvi through the petitioner / accused and therefore, the paternity of the child is not in dispute now.

The Court below has held that as per the available documents, the petitioner could not be construed as a juvenile. As per the medical evidence, the defacto-complainant was a pregnant woman of 8 months on the date of the complaint. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner herein had continuously insisted the defacto-complainant for abortion, however, she was not inclined to abort the child.

As per the findings of the Court below, on the date of committing the offence, the petitioner was aged more than 18 years and therefore, he was not entitled to refer the matter to Juvenile Justice Board. As contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, it has been established that the child Nirosha is the daughter of the defacto-complainant born through the petitioner / accused, as per the DNA test conducted. The evidence available on record would show that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of the occurrence.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that both the alleged victim girl and the petitioner / accused are relatives. After having a child, born through the petitioner / accused, the victim girl is ready and willing to marry the petitioner / accused and hence, there is a possibility for settlement. However, the scope of this revision is limited to that extent of deciding whether the petitioner was a minor on the date of the occurrence and whether the case has to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could not have been a minor on the date of occurrence and that there is no justifiable reason to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board.

On the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, holding that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of the occurrence and there is no contra evidence to hold that the petitioner was a juvenile. In the said circumstance, the request of the petitioner to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board could not be accepted and accordingly, the criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose the matter, according to law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, if any.