MADHAV S/O. AVDHUTRAO JAYATPALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40206


                                                                               5.20revn
                                                   (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2020

                 Madhav s/o Avdhutrao Jayatpal,
                 Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril.,
                 R/o Awalgaon, Tq. Sonpeth,
                 Dist. Parbhani
                                                                  ….APPLICANT
                       VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through the Police Station Officer,
                 Police Station, Sonpeth,
                 Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani and others         ….RESPONDENTS
                                                  …..
                 Mr Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/State
                 Ms Gayatri S. Kalve, Advocate h/f Mr M. V. Ghatge, Advocate for
                 Respondent Nos.2 to 5
                                                 …..

                                            CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                              DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.            Heard Mr Kale, learned Advocate for the applicant,

                 learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State and learned

                 Advocate Ms Kalve holding for Advocate Mr Ghatge for respondent

                 Nos.2 to 5.


                 2.            The applicant (original complainant) is challenging the

                 impugned order below Exh.1, dated 27/11/2019, passed by the learned
                                                                  5.20revn
                                   (2)

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Parbhani, in Juvenile

Case No.149/2018. By the said impugned order, the learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Parbhani, was pleased to dispose of and close the

proceedings before it, by releasing the juvenile in conflict with law.


3.           The present applicant is the original complainant. On

25/01/2018, he had filed a complaint with respondent No.1/Police

Authority, alleging that, on 24/01/2018 at about 20:30 to 21:00 hours,

the accused mentioned in the complaint, in furtherance of the common

intention, entered in the field of applicant/complainant and uprooted

the cotton crop causing him a loss of Rs.3,000/- and further committed

illegal trespass into his field by erecting huts made of gunny bags. On

the basis of said complaint, offence bearing Crime No.10/2018 came

to be registered on 25/01/2018 against the accused/juvenile in conflict

with law for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.


4.           The investigation was carried out, the statements of

witnesses were recorded, and spot panchanama was prepared. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the

juvenile in conflict with law, before the Juvenile Justice Board,

Parbhani, which is registered as J.C. No.149/2018.
                                                                   5.20revn
                                   (3)

5.           Learned Advocate for applicant submits that the

impugned order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board is against

principle of law and based on illegal presumption without considering

the facts on record. He submits that without securing appearance of

juvenile in conflict with law, the learned Juvenile Justice Board

disposed the matter and has committed a grave error in releasing the

juvenile in conflict with law. He, therefore, prays for allowing this

revision application.


6.           Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5

opposes the application vehemently. He submits that the Juvenile

Justice Board has rightly passed the order of releasing respondents.

He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this revision application.


7.           After hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates

for the respective parties and after carefully perusing the aforesaid

impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Parbhani, vide his impugned order dated

27/11/2019, was pleased to observe that the offence is registered in the

year 2018, and since then, the case is pending before the Juvenile

Justice Board for appearance. It was also observed that though process

was issued on a number of occasions, the child in conflict with law
                                                                  5.20revn
                                   (4)

remained absent and, the thus, the prosecution failed to secure their

presence. While relying on Section 14(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the Act”), the learned

Juvenile Justice Board observed that, if the inquiry by the Board under

sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the

extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated. It was further

observed that the offence alleged against child in conflict with law, is a

petty offence and the case is pending since near about one year. By

observing that the period of four months as per Section 14(2) of the

Act is already over and the inquiry is not completed even in the

extended period. By considering the age and stage of the matter, the

learned Juvenile Justice Board observed that, no purpose will be

served by keeping the matter pending for another years together.

Hence, the Juvenile Justice Board disposed of the matter, thereby

releasing the juvenile in conflict with law.


8.           In view of above, this Court finds that, since the matter

pertains to the year 2018, and despite the extended period, inquiry

could not be completed, by taking recourse to the provisions of Section

14(2) of the Act, the learned Juvenile Justice Board has rightly

disposed of the matter, thereby releasing the juvenile in conflict with

law. Since the offence registered against the juvenile in conflict with
                                                                 5.20revn
                                   (5)

law is a petty offence, and despite being granted sufficient

opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the presence, in my

opinion, no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings

pending, and the inquiry deserves to be terminated. Consequently, I

find no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the applicant and the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly taken a

decision to dispose of the matter by releasing the juvenile in conflict

with law.


9.           The scope of a revision is highly limited and is to examine

the the illegality, propriety or correctness of the orders passed by the

Inferior Courts. I find no error of law or perversity in the order

disposing of the matter by the Juvenile Justice Board, and hence, I

decline to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the matter pertains to the year 2018

and now it would be inappropriate to reopen the proceedings,

especially when the parties have long since settled into their respective

lives.   Consequently, the instant criminal revision application is

dismissed.


                                     [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk