Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akshay Dagar vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038706
CRR No.560 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:038706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
114. CRR No.560 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:18.03.2024
Akshay Dagar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dhiman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for
setting aside the judgment dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palwal allowing the application filed by the
complainant for making inquiry with respect to the age of the petitioner has been
upheld.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested in FIR
No.202 dated 24.07.2021 registered under Sections 302 IPC and Sections 25 of the
Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Palwal and on investigation, he was found to be
juvenile on the date of alleged incident and accordingly, challan was presented
against him. Being juvenile, he applied for bail before the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palwal but his bail application was dismissed
vide order dated 30.05.2022 on the ground that if he is released on bail, there is
possibility to expose juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger as the
family of the deceased is also residing in same vicinity and his release would defeat
the ends of justice. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2022, petitioner preferred
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038706
CRR No.560 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:038706
an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal but the same was dismissed
vide order dated 12.07.2022. The petitioner assailed both the aforesaid orders
before this Court in CRR No.1610 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated
10.08.2022 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. The petitioner
also filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that the
actual date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.2006 as per transfer certificate of 8th
class wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.01.2006, however,
due to typographical mistake, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as
01.01.2005 in the form sent to the Central Board of Secondary Education (in short
CBSE). In the said civil suit, complainant has also been impleaded as defendant
vide order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Civil Court. Thereafter, the complainant
filed an application before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Palwal for making inquiry with respect to the age of the petitioner, which was
allowed vide order dated 13.05.2022 and age of the petitioner was considered as
01.01.2005. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, which was dismissed vide
order dated 13.05.2022. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner
has brought on record Ex.R1 i.e. his admission form in Saraswati Shishu Mandir
School and further reliance is placed on Ex.R2, which is transfer certificate from 7th
standard to 8th standard wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2006. Even
the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Palwal vide order dated 08.02.2024 against the settled law and the factual
matrix of the case. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and
another 2023 (2) RCR (Criminal) 686 and the judgment passed by the Gujarat
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038706
CRR No.560 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:038706
High Court in Child in Conflict with law Vs. State of Gujarat 2023 NCGUJHC
47956.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the
record of the case, this Court finds no force in the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that date
of birth of the petitioner in the matriculation certificate and the adhar card is
mentioned as 01.01.2005. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are found
incomplete. Ex.R1 and R2 bear no date, month and year and do not contain the
photograph of the student or the signatures of School Teacher, Incharge or
Principal. RW-1Vijay Kumar, Clerk of the school produced by the petitioner in his
cross-examination stated that office use portion of the form did not bear signature of
any clerk, branch incharge or Principal and further admitted that signature of the
student is not available on these forms. The petitioner had sought change in date of
birth after registration of the FIR. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 give a place of primacy to the matriculation certificate over
the other proofs of date of birth, however, that provision has been replaced by the
Act of 2015. Section 94 of the Act of 2015 governs the procedure for determination
of age, according to which, date of birth certificate from the school or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board is
given primacy and in the absence thereof, birth certificate issued by a Corporation
or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat is to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment passed in P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State rep. by Inspector of
Police AIR 2023 SC 3525 has held that transfer certificate and extracts of admission
register are not what Section 94 (2) (i) of the Act of 2015 mandates nor are they in
accord with the same.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038706
CRR No.560 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:038706
5. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Palwal has rightly considered the age of the petitioner as
01.01.2005 vide order dated 13.05.2022, which has been affirmed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated 08.02.2024. This Court finds
no infirmity in the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below and upheld the
same. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
March 18, 2024
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
