Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that the second respondent was studying in the petitioner school, from L.K.G., upto XIth standard. There were certain complaints against the second respondent stating that he had been making lewd comments and he has been using vulgar language, while teasing some girls students in the School. On 9.4.2011, the petitioner had received a complaint from a girl student namely, Sandhya and her father Sairam, alleging that the second respondent had been indulging in eve-teasing and had opened a Facebook Account in her name and had been using vulgar and filthy language, creating a negative impression about her. Thus, the second respondent had been harassing the girl student, causing her serious mental agony to her and to her parents. 3. It has been further stated that a Disciplinary Committee had examined the second respondent, his classmates and the Teacher concerned, based on the complaint given to the petitioner. On 11.4.2011, the Disciplinary Committee had submitted a detailed report recommending that severe action may be taken against the second respondent, to maintain the decorum of the School and to create a peaceful atmosphere for the students of the petitioner School to pursue their studies. In spite of several opportunities having been given to the second respondent, he had not corrected himself. He had continued to misbehave with girls students. Based on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee, the Management of the petitioner School had decided to expel the second respondent, exercising the power conferred on it under the Tamil Nadu Education Rules, 1892. Accordingly, a Transfer Certificate had been sent to the second respondent after promoting him to XII the standard, to enable him to continue his studies in some other School. The second respondent had received the Transfer Certificate without any protest. Thereafter, the mother of the second respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.12987 of 2011, to quash the records relating to the Transfer Certificate issued to the second respondent, and to direct the petitioner School to readmit the second respondent in the said School. The second respondent had received the Transfer Certificate without any protest. Thereafter, the mother of the second respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.12987 of 2011, to quash the records relating to the Transfer Certificate issued to the second respondent, and to direct the petitioner School to readmit the second respondent in the said School. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent had been arrested, based on the First Information Report registered, in Crime No.797 of 2011, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of women Act, 1998, read with Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal code, based on the complaint lodged by the father of the girl student, Sandhya. Thereafter, the second respondent had been sent to the Juvenile Home. 4. It has been further submitted that this Court had persuaded the Government Pleader to get the second respondent admitted in a new School so that he could continue his studies, without any interruption. Thereafter, the writ petition filed on behalf of the second respondent had been closed. Suppressing all the above facts, the petitioner had submitted a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner, before the first respondent child welfare committee, which has no power or authority to cause an enquiry into the matter. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to prohibit the first respondent Child Welfare Committee from holding an enquiry into the matter, based on the frivolous complaint filed on behalf of the second respondent. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, against the second respondent, had been denied. 6. It has been stated that the complaint lodged against the second respondent is false and frivolous. In fact, the petitioner had conducted himself in a highly rude manner, by assaulting the second respondent and by throwing him out of the School. Further, he had refused to issue a proper conduct certificate to the second respondent. The vengeful act of the petitioner has seriously affected the second respondent, both mentally and physically. By his unwarranted action, the petitioner has adversely affected the future of the second respondent. 7. It had been further stated that a criminal complaint has been preferred against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur. The vengeful act of the petitioner has seriously affected the second respondent, both mentally and physically. By his unwarranted action, the petitioner has adversely affected the future of the second respondent. 7. It had been further stated that a criminal complaint has been preferred against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur. Further, a complaint has been preferred before the Human Rights Commission, Chennai, and the same is pending. 8. It has been further stated that the Child Welfare Committee has the power and the authority to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner for abusing the second respondent and for infringing the fundamental rights of the second respondent. 9. It had been further stated that the plea of the petitioner that the Child Welfare Committee does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the complaint made on behalf of the second respondent, before the Child Welfare Committee, is false and frivolous in nature. The Child Welfare Committee, contemplated under Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, could discharge its duties and obligations conferred on it only in relation to a child in need, care and protection, as per Section 2(d) of the said Act. A ‘child in need care and protection’ is defined under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act. 11. A ‘child in need care and protection’ is defined under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act. 11. Section 2 (d) of the Act reads as follows: "(d) ''Child in need of care and protection'' means a child- (i) Who is found without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence, ii) Who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person- (a) Has threatened to kill or injure the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out, or (b) Has killed, abused or neglected some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused or neglected by that person, (iii) Who is mentally or physically challenged or ill children or children suffering from terminal diseases or incurable diseases having no one to support or look after, (iv) Who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is unfit or incapacitated to exercise control over the child, (v) Who does not have parent and no one is willing to take care of or whose parents have abandoned him or who is missing and run away child and whose parents cannot be found after reasonable inquiry, (vi) Who is being or is likely to be grossly abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts, (vii) Who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking, (viii) Who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains, (ix) Who is victim of any armed conflict, civil commotion or natural calamity;" 12. It has been further stated that the allegation made on behalf of the second respondent cannot be enquired into by the Child Welfare Committee, as the second respondent would not be covered under the definition of a child in need care and protection, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. As such, the Child Welfare Committee, contemplated under Section 29 of the Act, does not have the authority or the power to cause an enquiry, in respect of the complaint made against the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the petitioner had committed a grave misconduct, by assaulting the second respondent and by sending him out of the petitioner School. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the petitioner had committed a grave misconduct, by assaulting the second respondent and by sending him out of the petitioner School. He had caused severe mental agony and has jeopardized the future of the second respondent, by his misconduct. Further, the petitioner had abused the second respondent, who is a minor, based on the frivolous complaint made against him. As such, the Child Welfare Committee, contemplated under Section 29 of the Act, has the authority and jurisdiction to cause an enquiry, in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the Child Welfare Committee, contemplated under Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, would not have the power or authority to cause an enquiry based on the complaint made on behalf of the second respondent. 15. It cannot be held that the second respondent would be covered by the definition of a 'child in need, care and protection' under Clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to prohibit the Child Welfare Committee concerned from proceeding further with the enquiry, based on the complaint made on behalf of the second respondent, dated 2.10.2011. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the views expressed in the present order would not have any bearing on the proceedings, if any, pending before the other authorities or the Court concerned. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.