FIR Against Juvenile for Non-Heinous Offences Committed With Adults Is Inadmissible Under JJ Act Rules.

The petitioner (Accused No. 3) was involved in an incident on March 17, 2023, regarding a land dispute where he allegedly assaulted the complainant with a stone.

At the time of the incident, the petitioner’s date of birth was April 10, 2005, making him 17 years and 10 months old—20 days short of attaining adulthood.

The Bilikere Police registered FIR No. 57/2023 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354B, and 34 of the IPC and subsequently filed a charge sheet (C.C.No.165/2023) before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, asserting he must be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act").

1. Whether the jurisdictional police had the authority to register an FIR and file a charge sheet against a juvenile for a non-heinous offence in a regular criminal court.

2. Whether an offence under Section 324 of the IPC constitutes a "petty," "serious," or "heinous" offence under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The Court applied Section 2(33), 2(45), and 2(54) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which categorize offences into "heinous" (minimum 7+ years imprisonment), "petty" (maximum up to 3 years), and "serious" (3 to 7 years).

It further relied on Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which prohibits the registration of an FIR against a child unless a "heinous offence" is alleged.

The Court also utilized the interpretive principle of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps), as elucidated in Parle Agro Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2017) 7 SCC 540, to interpret the phrase "such offence" in Rule 8.

The Court observed that the primary allegation against the petitioner was hitting the complainant with a stone, attracting Section 324 of the IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of 3 years.

Consequently, this falls under the definition of a "petty offence" under Section 2(45) of the Act.

Rule 8 of the Model Rules explicitly mandates that no FIR shall be registered against a juvenile except for "heinous offences".

The Court rejected the State's argument that committing the act alongside adults allows for regular FIR registration, holding that the "petty" vs. "heinous" distinction is the jurisdictional trigger regardless of whether the child acted alone or with adults.

Applying noscitur a sociis, the Court determined that the jurisdiction of the regular police to register an FIR does not extend to petty offences involving juveniles.

Therefore, the continued prosecution in a regular JMFC court was fundamentally without jurisdiction.

The Court held that while the offence under Section 324 IPC remains, it must be handled according to the statutory framework for juveniles.

It directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer the matter to the Special Juvenile Police Unit for a fresh investigation in accordance with the Act and Model Rules.