The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) lacks authority to direct police to file an FIR, observing that “the CWC is only empowered to forward a report to the Juvenile Justice Board or police authority.”
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) does not have the authority to instruct the police to file a First Information Report (FIR).
The court emphasized that under the Juvenile Justice Act, the CWC’s role is limited to ensuring the care and protection of children, rather than initiating criminal proceedings.
Justice Chawan Prakash, stated,
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) is only empowered to forward a report to the Juvenile Justice Board or to the concerned police authority regarding any violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,”
The ruling arose from a criminal revision petition filed by Rishi Pal and another individual, contesting an order from the Nyaypeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti (CWC), Badaun, which had directed the police to register a case under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Rishi Pal, the father of a minor girl, had previously filed an FIR alleging that four men Tinku, Sonu, Sanju, and Sugreev had kidnapped his daughter from their home in Badaun on April 6, 2021.
He reported that she was later found unconscious near one of the accused’s residences.
The police subsequently registered a case under Sections 363, 366, and 376(3) of the IPC, as well as Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act.
During their investigation, the police confirmed the girl’s minor status through her school certificate, which indicated her birth date as March 1, 2007. When she was presented to the CWC in Badaun, the Committee discovered that she was pregnant and had allegedly married revisionist no. 2, Rakesh.
Acknowledging her age, the Committee returned her custody to her father but instructed the police to file a new FIR under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against those involved in the marriage.
The revisionists challenged this directive, arguing that the Committee lacked jurisdiction to issue such orders and that the marriage was valid since the girl was supposedly over 18 years old. They further contended that only a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC could authorize the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offense.
The State, however, supported the Committee’s actions, asserting that medical and educational records confirmed the victim was a minor, approximately 14 years and eight months old at the time of the incident, and was pregnant, thus warranting a case under the Child Marriage Act.
Upon reviewing the relevant legal provisions, the Court examined Sections 27 and 30 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which delineate the structure and powers of Child Welfare Committees.
The Court noted that while a CWC operates similarly to a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, its powers are restricted to issues concerning children in need of care and protection, such as custody, rehabilitation, and restoration.
Justice Prakash, observed,
“It is nowhere stated that the Child Welfare Committee can direct the police for registration of an FIR in any cognizable offence,”
He made it clear that the Committee’s role is advisory; it may forward reports or highlight violations to the Juvenile Justice Board or police, but it cannot issue mandatory directives to file an FIR.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, concluding that the Committee had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing the directive and annulled the order dated November 30, 2021, regarding the instruction to register the FIR.
Case Title: Rishi Pal And Another vs State of U.P. and Another