Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pritam Puri vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:777) on 6 January, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:777]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6523/2021
Pritam Puri S/o Sh. Vikram Puri, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Puri,
R/o Ice Factory, Rani Bazar, Dist. Bikaner.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through PP and Ors.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
                                   Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, Asst.G.A.
                                   Mr. Madhusudan Purohit
Present-in-Person            :     Ms. Riya
                                   Ms. Neha



                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/01/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

niceties of the matter.

2. An application No. 02/2024 has been moved on behalf of the

legal representatives of respondent No.2 for taking them on

record as to give them a right to be heard.

3. For the reasons and grounds mentioned therein, the

application is allowed. The LR's of respondent No.2 are taken

on record and they have been heard.

4. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts of the case are that

the petitioner is facing trial for allegedly committing the

offences of cheating, forgery and making a false document.

5. The case was pending before the trial Court since the year

2011. At the verge of disposal, he moved an application

under Sections 9, 18 and 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

[2025:RJ-JD:777] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2021]

and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as

"The Act") raising claim of juvenility and on that count

sending the matter before the Juvenile Justice Board for

further course of action in criminal proceeding. The same

was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2021 which is the

order under assail before this Court.

6. After minutely going through the niceties of the matter, it is

observed that even the complainant who has been examined

in the trial as PW-1 admits in cross examination that he

knew the fact of a forged Will in question since 1985 when

the probate petition got dismissed. He further admits that for

the last 30 years, he has been aware of the facts regarding

forgery and creation of a false Will.

7. It is the assertion that the petitioner Pritam Puri was a boy

below the age of 16 years at the relevant point of time when

the offence was committed, and that though he is beneficiary

of the instrument but at the same time, it cannot be ignored

that the prosecution nowhere accuses that he prepared the

false Will rather what is reflecting from the record is that it

had been prepared vaguely. There is a serious question

involved in this case is that whether the petitioner was

juvenile at the time of the offence of forgery was committed.

8. Section 9 read with Section 23 of the Act makes it

abundantly clear that whenever a claim of juvenility is

raised, regardless of the stage of proceeding, it is imperative

for criminal courts to first decide the claim of juvenility by

initiating an inquiry with regard to the claim raised on behalf

of the accused.

[2025:RJ-JD:777] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2021]

9. In view of the admission made by PW-1 Vishnu Puri and in

light of other materials available on record, it can tentatively

be observed that the Will was allegedly forged before 1985.

The age of the petitioner in the year 2021 was 41 years and

therefore, in my view, he has a legitimate right to raise the

issue of his juvenility at the time of the alleged commission

of the crime. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar

Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2013

SC 1020. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced

herein under:

"36. Now, we summarise the position which is as under:

(i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in appeal court.

(ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.

(iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further

[2025:RJ-JD:777] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2021]

enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh (2009) 7 SCC 415 and Pawan (2009) 15 SCC 259 these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh (2010) 13 SCC 523 the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the Appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.

(iv) An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of age of the delinquent.

(v) The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in 2000 Act are not defeated by hyper-technical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should

[2025:RJ-JD:777] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2021]

be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

(vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at threshold whenever raised."

10. This Court aptly guided by the principles and law laid down

by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment referred

supra and following which I feel persuaded to allow the

miscellaneous petition.

11. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed.

12. The order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner (Rajasthan) is hereby

quashed and set aside. The learned trial court is directed to

initiate an inquiry regarding the claim of juvenility raised by

the petitioner. The inquiry shall be commenced and

concluded within a period of two months from its initiation.

Thereafter, if the trial court concludes that the petitioner was