Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/12343/2026 of NAVRAJ Vs REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI on 24 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010397682026 + W.P.(C) 12343/2026 NAVRAJ .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arnav Bhansali and Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
$~78
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010397682026
+
W.P.(C) 12343/2026
NAVRAJ
.....Petitioner
Through:
Appearance not given.
versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arnav Bhansali
and Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 01.09.2026
1. This petition has been listed under the heading “Directions” in view of two errors, which have crept in the order dated 24.08.2026 inasmuch as in the last line in paragraph 10, and third line of paragraph 11, the words ‘Children’s Court’ need to be substituted by the words “Juvenile Justice Board”.
2. Henceforth, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order dated 24.08.2026 shall be read as under:- “10. She also submits that an offence committed by a child follows the statutory preliminary assessment proceedings by the Children’s Court whereas other offences may remain triable with the Juvenile Justice Board. She states that the petitioner specifically raised This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 10:30:13
this defect in his objection, pointing out that the question contains both Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court as options despite failing to furnish the facts necessary to determine which forum is competent. The submission of Dr. George is primarily that the submission of Ms. Sharma is on a misreading of the provisions of the JJ Act. According to him, the competent forum to decide the issue relatable to offences committed by a child less than sixteen years of age is the Juvenile Justice Board. It is only in certain eventualities like under Section 15 and Section 18 of the JJ Act that the matter is referred to the Children’s Court. If the question is seen in that perspective, the right answer to the question no.73 would be Juvenile Justice Board.
11. We agree with the said submission made by Dr. George as the offence is stated to be under the POCSO Act, the Court competent to decide the issue shall be the Juvenile Justice Board. Hence, the objection to this question is rejected.”
3. As and when a certified copy of the order dated 24.08.2026 shall be issued, a copy of this order shall also be issued. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/sr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 10:30:13