Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against 9 Year Old, Imposes Rs.25k Cost On State Govt For Registration Of FIR

A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice S.M Modak of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against a 9-year-old for causing grievous hurt under section 338 of the IPC.

It was alleged by the complainant that in March 2022, the complainant’s parents had gone down to a podium of the society building and the 9-year-old lost his balance while cycling and dashed against her mother, as a result of which, she sustained an injury. Pursuant to this, an FIR was lodged against the 9-year-old after a week.

The mother of the 9-year-old then approached the Bombay High Court for quashing an FIR registered against her son.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that having regard to the age of the petitioner’s son i.e. 9 years, no FIR could have been registered by the police, keeping in mind the mandate of Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code. He also argued that post the FIR, there was media coverage given to the said incident, which was clearly an accident, and that the minor boy has been traumatized and has been badly affected.

The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that he did not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR and that the police had filed a `C’ Summary report in the said case. He also informed the court that action had been initiated against the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who registered the FIR against the petitioner’s son.

The counsel for the complainant also informed the court that he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding.

During the course of the hearing, the mother of the 9-year-old was present in the court. The bench asked the mother if the child was being taken for counseling. The mother replied to the bench stating that her son is not ready to speak to anyone and therefore she is giving him some time. She also informed the court that his son is being bullied in the WhatsApp group and the whole nation is talking about her son.

The court while quashing the FIR noted that:

“We are shocked and surprised that the police registered the FIR against a minor boy, at the behest of the respondent No.3, without having regard to the age of the boy involved. It appears that even before investigation, `C’ Summary report was filed by the police in the said case, however, much damage was done to the boy aged 9 years, by the allegations made against him and the publicity given to the said case.”

Further, the sub-inspector of Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai, informed the court that the said FIR was registered due to a misconception of the law and that it was not his intent to register an FIR against a minor child aged 9 years. He also informed the court that he had prepared the report under Section 2(45) of the Juvenile Act, but had not taken any coercive action at any point in time. Further, an unconditional apology was also given by the sub-inspector for registering the FIR against the minor.

The court with regard to non-application of mind while registering FIR against a minor noted that:

“Misconception or ignorance of law is not an excuse, much less, for a police officer and in the peculiar facts, more so, having regard to the fact that the child was only 9 years of age. This action of the police i.e. of registration of FIR, has resulted in traumatizing a 9 year old boy. Despite Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, the police have proceeded to register the FIR as against the petitioner’s son, a minor aged 9 years, at the behest of the respondent No.3. The action reflects complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer whilst registering the offence.”

The division bench also expressed displeasure against the Metropolitan Magistrate for not taking up the matter despite the orders of the court. Further, the bench also imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on the state government taking note of the conduct of the police.

Case Title: A.K vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.