The Bombay High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a 9-year-old boy for unintentionally colliding with a woman while cycling [AK vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.].

The boy had been booked under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of causing grievous hurt.

Justices Revati Mohite Dere and SM Modak imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the State, stating that registration of the FIR against a minor boy despite the protection under Section 83 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) traumatized the boy and reflected complete non-application of mind by the Police.

Section 83 lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.

"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 Court stated.

Advocate Shravan Giri for the petitioner, the boy's mother, argued that in light of Section 83 mandate and also the fact that it was an accident, no FIR could have been registered against her son. He also added that the subsequent media coverage of the incident, which was clearly an accident, left the boy traumatized.

Assistant Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik did not object to the quashing of the FIR and also stated that the police had filed a 'C' Summary report in the case following which action was initiated against the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who registered the FIR.

The complainant, though advocate Viresh Purwant, also told the Court that she had no objection to quashing of the proceedings.

The Court observed that the accident was clearly unintentional, and expressed shock at the registration of the FIR without any regard to the boy's age.

"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," it added.

The Police sub-inspector who registered the FIR stated that it was done due to misconception of law and that he did not intend to register the FIR against a minor. He tendered an unconditional apology for the same.

The Court stated that misconception or ignorance of law, especially for a police officer, cannot be an excuse given the child's age.

Therefore, it quashed the FIR and directed the State Government to pay ₹25,000 to the petitioner as compensation. The amount could be recovered from the responsible police officials, the Court added.

[Read Order]