The detailed facts of the case The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramesh Nai And Anr.

on
October 14 1974

 Accused: Ramesh Nai and another unnamed person (Anr. stands for "and another")
 Crime: Alleged rape of a 10-year-old girl (Mst. Janak Dulari) on May 11, 1972, around 2
PM.
 Location: The prosecutrix (victim) was playing in front of her house with other girls
when the accused took her to a room and committed the crime.

Following the Crime:

 The victim informed her mother (Mst. Jeerabai) who reported the incident to her
husband, Kalansingh.
 Kalansingh filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the police on the same day.
 The police conducted an investigation.

Age Dispute and Court Proceedings:

 A medical examination determined the accused's age to be between 14 and 15 years,

indicating he might be a juvenile.
 Despite the age dispute, the challan (police report) listed the accused's age as 18.
 The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offense was
deemed triable only by that court (Sessions Court handles more serious crimes).
 There seems to be a delay in transferring the case papers to the Sessions Court.
 The accused was released on bail on January 16, 1987, with the bail order again
mentioning his age as 18.

Juvenile Claim:

 On January 29, 1987, the petitioner's lawyer argued before the Juvenile Court Magistrate
(J.M.F.C.) that the accused was a juvenile (under 16 years old) on the date of the crime.
 They requested the case be transferred to the Juvenile Court, the appropriate court for
trying juvenile offenders.
  The J.M.F.C. rejected the application on August 24, 1987, stating they lacked jurisdiction
as the case was already committed to the Sessions Court.

Further Attempts to Challenge Age:

 The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court challenging the
J.M.F.C.'s order.
 The Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition on July 2, 1988, upholding the
J.M.F.C.'s reasoning.
 On the day of the trial commencement in the Sessions Court (July 4, 1988), the petitioner
filed another application claiming to be a juvenile on the date of the crime.
 This application offered to provide evidence to support the age claim but there's no
information on whether the Sessions Judge considered it.

Current Situation:

 The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
before the High Court.
 The petition argues that the petitioner is a juvenile and the committal order to the
Sessions Court is illegal.
 They request the High Court to quash the committal order and transfer the case to the
Juvenile Court for age determination and appropriate trial.

Unresolved Issues:

 The key question is the petitioner's actual age at the time of the crime.
 Determining the age will decide whether the Sessions Court or the Juvenile Court has
jurisdiction over the case.

Note: It's important to remember that this summary is based on the information available in the
provided legal citation. The complete case details might include more information not included
in this summary.