In a significant ruling that refines how juvenile offences are interpreted under Indian law, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has held that a case involving alleged sexual misconduct and online extortion by minors does not qualify as a “heinous offence” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court quashed the Ajmer POCSO court's order that had directed the minors’ trial as adults and remitted the case back to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for proper inquiry.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered the detailed 26-page judgment on October 27, 2025, after hearing both revision petitions together, since they raised identical legal questions.
Background
The controversy arose when two juveniles were booked under multiple sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and Information Technology Act - including charges for attempt to commit rape (Section 376/511 IPC), sexual harassment, stalking, abetment of suicide, extortion, and transmission of obscene material.
The Juvenile Justice Board in Ajmer had decided in March 2025 to conduct their inquiry as juveniles. However, the complainant challenged this before the Special POCSO Court, which reversed the JJB’s order in June 2025 and directed that the boys be tried before the Children’s Court as adult accused.
This reversal prompted the minors’ counsels to move the High Court, arguing that none of the alleged offences carried a minimum punishment of seven years, which is a statutory threshold for labeling an offence as “heinous.”
Court's Observations
Justice Dhand began by tracing the intent behind the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - emphasizing that Parliament designed it to differentiate between petty, serious, and heinous offences to balance child protection with accountability.
The bench observed,
“The legislature consciously classified offences into three categories to achieve the object of the Act. The term ‘heinous offence’ cannot be interpreted in a way that is less beneficial for a child.”
The Court noted that the Act defines a “heinous offence” as one with a minimum punishment of seven years or more. Since in the present case, the alleged offences either prescribed no minimum or a lesser minimum sentence, they could not fit within that definition.
Justice Dhand relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Shilpa Mittal vs State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2020 SC 405), where the apex court clarified that offences lacking a minimum sentence of seven years fall under the “serious offence” category - not “heinous.”
Quoting the Supreme Court, the judge remarked,
“An offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of seven years cannot be treated as a heinous offence.”
The Court also distinguished recent rulings cited by the prosecution - including Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu and an Allahabad High Court decision - finding them inapplicable to the present facts.
Legal Reasoning Simplified
In simpler terms, the Court reasoned that only crimes that must attract at least seven years of imprisonment at the minimum can be treated as heinous. Where the punishment “may extend” to seven years but does not start from seven, the case cannot be treated as heinous.
The judge explained that the Juvenile Board can order a child’s trial as an adult only after a “preliminary assessment” under Section 15 of the Act - and such assessment applies solely to “heinous” offences. Since the offences here were “serious” at most, that provision did not apply.
“There is no reason or occasion to refer the case of the petitioners to the Children’s Court for their trial as adult accused,” Justice Dhand concluded.
Decision
Holding that the Special POCSO Judge’s order was legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed it entirely. The matter was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, with a direction to conduct proceedings “strictly in accordance with law.”
The ruling reaffirms the principle that juveniles should be treated under the child-centric protection scheme unless their alleged offences clearly meet the legislative threshold of heinousness.
The Court summed up the spirit of its verdict, saying,
“Children below 18 years are to be treated equally under the Act, except those in the 16-18 bracket who have committed heinous offences.”
With that, both revision petitions were allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: A v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr and connected petition
Connected Cases
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1371 of 2025
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2025