Assandas and anr. Vs. Nathirmal and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Rajasthan High Court|
|Judge|| Nigam, J.C.|
|Appellant||Assandas and anr.|
|Respondent||Nathirmal and anr.|
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........assandas be dismissed. in the reference, i have heard the learned counsel for assandas, i have heard nathirmal who is present in person. the public prosecutor has not put in his appearance on behalf of the state.2. it appears that on 3-6-1953 nathirmal filed a complaint against assandas under section 500, i.p.c. in the court of the additional city magistrate, ajmer. this complaint was not disposed of till 8-7-1953. on 4-7-1953 nathirmal presented another complaint in the court of the city magistrate against assandas and tilokchand gopaldas under sections 499 and 500, i.p.c. it is not disputed that so far as assandas is concerned the second complaint is on the same facts as the first.3. as the complaint against assandas was still pending on 4-7-1953, when the second complaint was.....
1. This is a reference by the leaning Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the second complaint preferred by Nathirmal against Assandas be dismissed. In the reference, I have heard the learned Counsel for Assandas, I have heard Nathirmal who is present in person. The Public Prosecutor has not put in his appearance on behalf of the State.
2. It appears that on 3-6-1953 Nathirmal filed a complaint against Assandas under Section 500, I.P.C. in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Ajmer. This complaint was not disposed of till 8-7-1953. On 4-7-1953 Nathirmal presented another complaint in the Court of the City Magistrate against Assandas and Tilokchand Gopaldas under Sections 499 and 500, I.P.C. It is not disputed that so far as Assandas is concerned the second complaint is on the same facts as the first.
3. As the complaint against Assandas was still pending on 4-7-1953, when the second complaint was preferred, the second complaint could not be proceeded with and. so far as Assandas is concerned, that complaint had to be filed without orders.
4. I, therefore, accept the reference and direct that the second complaint so far as it relates to the charge against Assandas be filed without orders in view of the pendency of the first complaint. With these remarks, I accept the reference.