Facts:

• The mother of the child in conflict with the law (CCL) was the Appellant.
• The State of Karnataka was the Respondent.
• FIR was registered against the CCL for offences under Sections 376(i), 342 Indian Penal Code, 1806 (IPC) and sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The issue was whether the CCL should be tried as a juvenile or an adult.
• The matter was initially filed before the Additional Juvenile Justice Board, Bangalore City. The Board, on 05.04.2022, based on the preliminary assessment and social investigation reports, decided that the CCL should be tried as an adult, but, later on 12.04.2022, this decision was reversed, stating that the CCL should be tried as a juvenile.
• The High Court of Karnataka, Bengalore set aside this decision, directing the case to be tried in the Children’s Court.
• The complainant/mother of the victim filed an application under Section 19 of the POCSO Act on 18.10.2022 to transfer the case to the Children's Court. The Board dismissed this application on 10.04.2023.
• Aggrieved by the Board's decision, the complainant filed a revision petition, which the High Court allowed.
• Hence, the Appellant challenged the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court.
  

Background:

Additional Juvenile Justice Board, Bangalore City:

• After the investigation and charge sheet, the Board had to decide whether to try the CCL as an adult or juvenile.
• On 05.04.2022, the Principal Magistrate of the Board ordered the CCL to be tried as an adult, while the Member of the Board recorded a dissenting view but did not issue a separate order before the adjournment.
• On 12.04.2022, two Members of the Board, without the Principal Magistrate, decided the CCL should be tried as a juvenile based on preliminary and social investigation reports.
• The complainant filed an application to transfer the case to the Children’s Court on 18.10.2022, which the Board dismissed on 10.04.2023.
  

High Court of Karnataka, Banglore:

• The complainant filed a revision petition seeking to overturn the order dismissing the application to transfer the case.
• The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Board's order dated 10.04.2023. The High Court further directed the Board to transfer the record to the Children's Court.
  

Supreme Court:

• Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the order to transfer the case. (Paragraph 9.5)
  

Main issues:

1. Whether the period for completing the preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) of the Act is mandatory or directory?
2. Whether the order passed by the Board on 05.04.2022 was valid? (Paragraph 15)