ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 04.03.2014 and 28.04.2015 passed by the Principal senior civil Judge, JMFC, Gubbi, Tumkur in C.C. No.134/2014. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State. 3. Though this case is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. A case has been listed against the petitioner alleging that the complainant got married to one Manjunath on 04.07.2010. The petitioner/accused induced her and threatened her that he will kill her if she does not follow him. As such, she accompanied the petitioner to Bengaluru and there, he kept her in a rented room for a period of 4 to 5 months and accused promised to lead life with her in future and on 17.06.2012, after coming to know that she is eight months pregnant, she approached the petitioner/accused to marry her and the petitioner refuted and dissented to marry. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered under Sections 497, 498, 506 and 420 of IPC. Thus being the case, the petitioner/accused filed a memo contending that the petitioner/accused is child in conflict with law and he is below 18 years. By virtue of the memo and entire records, the matter has been sent to the CJM Court on the point of Juvenility of the petitioner/accused. Learned CJM has sent back the file with a direction that before sending the record, time and date of birth of the accused should be verified. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial judge as well as the learned CJM, has not applied their mind and mechanically, they have passed the order based on the office note and the date of birth certificate of the petitioner/accused. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial judge as well as the learned CJM, has not applied their mind and mechanically, they have passed the order based on the office note and the date of birth certificate of the petitioner/accused. It is his submission that the contents of the complaint and the FIR indicates that the alleged incident has taken place eight years prior to 17.06.2012 that itself indicates that the petitioner/accused was a juvenile but the date on which the accused denied, if it is taken, then only it will be 18 years 2 months but the alleged incident has taken place prior to 8 months of refusal to marry. Taking into consideration of the said fact he contends that the petitioner/accused was a child in conflict with law as on the date of the alleged incident. In that light, Board ought to have entertained the said application and memo and it could have decided the issue on the fact. It is his further submission that the learned CJM and Juvenile Board has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 14 and before coming to the said conclusion, an enquiry has to be held as contemplated under the said Act. But without following the said procedure, the learned CJM has passed the impugned order. On these grounds, he prayed to set aside the orders. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the Date of birth certificate of the petitioner/accused produced along with the prosecution records shows that he has born on 19.04.1994 and as on 17.06.2012, when he denied and constituted an offence, he was 18 years and 2 months. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, learned CJM has passed an appropriate order, there are no good grounds to allow the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 8. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, as per Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) child in conflict with law Section 2(13) of the Act reads as under: “2(13). 8. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, as per Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) child in conflict with law Section 2(13) of the Act reads as under: “2(13). “child in conflict with law” means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence.” The child in conflict with law means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of such offence. 9. On close reading of the factual matrix, contents of the complaint and the FIR, it indicates that 8 months prior to lodging of the complaint, accused induced the complainant and has taken and kept her in a rented room and she has been sexually assaulted. But the Courts below without looking to Section 2(13) of the Act, has passed the impugned order based on the marks card and the office note. 10. Be that as it may. Even Section 14 of the Act reads as under: “14.InquirybyBoardregardingchildinconflictwithlaw.(1) Where a child alleged to be in conflict with law is produced before Board, the Board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may pass such orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under sections 17 and 18 of this Act. (2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. (3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. (3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. (4) If inquiry by the Board under subsection (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated: Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:— (a) at the time of initiating the inquiry, the Board shall satisfy itself that the child in conflict with law has not been subjected to any illtreatment by the police or by any other person, including a lawyer or probation officer and take corrective steps in case of such illtreatment; (b) in all cases under the Act, the proceedings shall be conducted in simple manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the child, against whom the proceedings have been instituted, is given child-friendly atmosphere during the proceedings; (c) every child brought before the Board shall be given the opportunity of being heard and participate in the inquiry; (d) cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (e) inquiry of heinous offences , (i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e); (ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under Section 15.” 11. By reading the above section, where a child alleged to be in conflict with law, is produced before the Board and the Board shall hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 14 and as per section 14(5) of the Act, it has to take the above said steps to ensure the fact and speedy enquiry with regard to ascertain whether the child in conflict with law is a child as contemplated under the said Act? 12. But on close reading of the order, office note and the records, which have been perused indicates that the alleged offence has taken place on 17.06.2012 in that light, learned CJM has remanded the case to the learned JMFC. The interpretation made is not in accordance with law and there is no application of mind by the principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and also in the statement of the Juvenile Justice Board as contemplated under Section 15(5) of the Act. 13. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that there is illegality in passing the impugned order. In that light, the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the principle Senior Civil Judge and CJM and the statement of the Juvenile Justice Board requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the said order is set aside and the matter has been remitted to the said Court with a direction to follow the norms as contemplated in the Juvenile Justice Act and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.