Juvenile Can Be Tried as Adult Even After Delay in Preliminary Assessment; Three-Month Timeline Under JJ Act Is Directory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Charanjeet Singh @ Charni v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 08 June 2026

Citation: CRR-547-2021

Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the three-month period prescribed under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is directory and not mandatory. Consequently, a juvenile accused of a heinous offence can still be subjected to a preliminary assessment and transferred for trial as an adult even if such assessment is conducted beyond the prescribed period.

Summary: The revision petition challenged the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bathinda and the Appellate Court whereby the prosecution’s application seeking to treat the petitioner as an adult was allowed and the matter was transferred to the Children’s Court for trial. The petitioner was alleged to be one of the assailants involved in the murder of Sukhdeep Singh and was more than sixteen years of age but below eighteen years on the date of the alleged occurrence.

The petitioner argued that after registration of the FIR and completion of substantial trial proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, the prosecution moved an application at a highly belated stage seeking transfer of the case for trial as an adult. It was contended that Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that a preliminary assessment under Section 15 must be completed within three months of the child’s first production before the Board. Since the assessment in the present case was conducted nearly four years later, the proceedings were alleged to be legally unsustainable.

The petitioner further contended that such delayed assessment caused serious prejudice because the evaluation of a person’s mental and physical capacity at the age of twenty could not accurately reflect his mental state at the age of sixteen when the alleged offence was committed.

Rejecting these submissions, Justice N.S. Shekhawat examined the statutory scheme of Sections 14 and 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and relied extensively upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka. The Court observed that while Section 14(3) prescribes a three-month period for conducting the preliminary assessment, the statute does not prescribe any consequence for failure to complete the exercise within that period.

The Court noted that unlike provisions dealing with petty offences, where the Act specifically contemplates termination of proceedings upon delay, no such consequence has been provided in cases involving serious or heinous offences. Therefore, the legislative intent clearly indicates that the timeline is directory rather than mandatory.

On the merits of the preliminary assessment, the Court observed that the allegations disclosed active participation of the petitioner in a planned murder. The material before the Board indicated that the petitioner allegedly participated in inflicting fatal injuries and later concealed incriminating evidence, including a blood-stained axe recovered at his instance. Such circumstances supported the conclusion that he possessed sufficient mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences.

The Court further noticed that the petitioner had studied up to matriculation and there was nothing on record to suggest any lack of maturity or inability to comprehend the nature and consequences of his alleged acts. Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court had recorded detailed findings regarding the petitioner’s mental capacity, physical capability and understanding of the offence.

Decision: Dismissing the revision petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court directing that the petitioner be tried as an adult before the Children’s Court. The Court held that the delay in conducting the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act did not invalidate the proceedings because the timeline prescribed under Section 14(3) is directory in nature and not mandatory.