Juvenile Justice Board Is 'Criminal Court' Justifying Withholding Of Passport U/S 6(2)(f): Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has clarified that a Juvenile Justice Board possesses all the trappings of a Criminal Court, justifying the non-issuance of passport or travel documents under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act to a person facing proceedings before the JJB.

Section 6(2)(f) provides for refusal of passport where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"Juvenile Justice Board has all the trappings of a Criminal Court, the proceedings against the petitioner which are pending before the said Board in respect of offences under Sections 447, 354, 323, 382, 201 of IPC would certainly attract the provisions under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act."

The petitioner claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. Consequently, an inquiry was initiated against him before the JJB. Meanwhile, having secured admission to a medical college in Bangladesh, he applied for the re-issuance of his expired passport. However, the passport was not issued.

The moot question that fell for adjudication before the Court was whether proceedings pending before the JJB would qualify as proceedings before a Criminal Court. If so, Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act would be triggered, justifying the withholding of the travel document by the Passport Authority.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, was enacted with the sole objective of providing proper care, protection, and development for children in conflict with the law. The inquiry proceedings before the JJB, being in accordance with the Act's principles, should not be considered as criminal proceedings, he argued.

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the proceedings before the JJB had been temporarily stayed by the High Court through an interim order.

After considering the arguments of both parties, Justice Dhar emphasized that JJB possesses the powers of a Criminal Court inasmuch as it follows the procedures prescribed for trial in summons cases and summary proceedings under CrPC, and its functioning is akin to that of a Criminal Court.

Court said from a conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act it is clear that JJB possesses the powers of a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and while holding inquiry regarding a child in conflict with law, it has to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of summons cases in case of serious offences and in the case of petty offences, it has to follow the procedure prescribed for summary proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Thus, the Juvenile Justice Board, in the matter of holding enquiry regarding a child in conflict with law, has all the trappings of a Criminal Court”, the bench maintained.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the proceedings against the petitioner pending before JJB, despite being stayed, would still be considered as pending proceedings before a Criminal Court. Thus, the action of the Passport Authority in withholding the passport/travel document was justified under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, it held.

However, the Court also took note of an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, which provided exemptions to certain cases. The memorandum allowed citizens against whom criminal proceedings were pending to be issued passports subject to specific court orders permitting their departure from India.

Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the JJB to seek appropriate orders.

Case Title: Hazik Wangnoo Vs Ut of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate, With Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate.

Counsel For Respondent: Ms. Rekha Wangnoo, GA, vice Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA-for R1 to R3 & R5 Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI-for R4.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment