Bombay High Court Condemns Neighbour for Assaulting 14-Year-Old Boy | Mumbai News

Mumbai: Hoping for harmony in a Lower Parel housing complex, Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the assault of a 14-year-old boy by a neighbour in a dispute involving children. “We will not tolerate this kind of conduct vis-a-vis children. There is a civil way of behaving,” said Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan while hearing a petition by the boy’s mother seeking an independent probe.
Around 8pm on Sept 10, in the common play area, the neighbour, who is in his 40s, caught the boy by his T-shirt collar and punched and kicked him.
The mother’s advocate said, “It was seen on CCTV. He said, ‘Come to my house, your mother is waiting for you.’ He tried to drag him, but people intervened. The mother was also beaten up.” On Sept 11, an FIR was registered by N M Joshi Marg police station against the neighbour and his wife for assault and outraging the modesty of a woman, voluntarily causing hurt, and breach of peace. The advocate said the police did not take cognisance of her complaint that the neighbour stalked her son for three days, an offence under the Pocso Act which ought to have been registered. The judges rapped the investigating officer over it.
The neighbour’s advocate said it was a “solitary incident” and that the boy fought with his son, aged 11, and other children. “This does not give you the right to assault a child… What kind of person are you? You need to be prosecuted and put behind bars… Can you beat up somebody else’s child the way you have… You could have killed that boy,” said Justice Mohite-Dere. The judges said they “don’t appreciate this behaviour on the part of educated people” and that “people in the lower strata behave better…”
They reasoned that children fight among themselves and even inside homes. “You don’t precipitate it. It is how you handle them in a balanced… more matured manner. Children are mischievous. If children start behaving like grownups, they are not children,” said Justice Mohite-Dere. The judges said there are children with attention deficit or who are overactive, but they can be counselled.
They noted the society’s WhatsApp group chats on the incident that “defame and malign the boy”. While the neighbour’s advocate said “it won’t be repeated”, the judges said he must tender an unconditional apology and ensure the boy won’t be targeted. “Children in a (housing) society will play, will fight, will beat again, because they are children. They are bound to. If they are not, then who? You? Or me?” asked Justice Chavan. He said, “Let the children play together. Let there be harmony in the society.”
Told by the mother’s advocate that as counterblast to the FIR, the neighbour’s wife filed a petition to declare the boy as a child in conflict with law, the judges questioned how it is maintainable.
The judges posted the matter in-chambers on Dec 4, telling the mother’s advocate to take instructions from her on whether she wants to pursue the case, “because if there is a settlement, it has to be holistic, and we’ll keep the petition pending to know how the petitioner and her son are being treated”.
Mumbai: Hoping for harmony in a Lower Parel housing complex, Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the assault of a 14-year-old boy by a neighbour in a dispute involving children. “We will not tolerate this kind of conduct vis-a-vis children. There is a civil way of behaving,” said Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan while hearing a petition by the boy’s mother seeking an independent probe.
Around 8pm on Sept 10, in the common play area, the neighbour, who is in his 40s, caught the boy by his T-shirt collar and punched and kicked him.
The mother’s advocate said, “It was seen on CCTV. He said, ‘Come to my house, your mother is waiting for you.’ He tried to drag him, but people intervened. The mother was also beaten up.” On Sept 11, an FIR was registered by N M Joshi Marg police station against the neighbour and his wife for assault and outraging the modesty of a woman, voluntarily causing hurt, and breach of peace. The advocate said the police did not take cognisance of her complaint that the neighbour stalked her son for three days, an offence under the Pocso Act which ought to have been registered. The judges rapped the investigating officer over it.
The neighbour’s advocate said it was a “solitary incident” and that the boy fought with his son, aged 11, and other children. “This does not give you the right to assault a child… What kind of person are you? You need to be prosecuted and put behind bars… Can you beat up somebody else’s child the way you have… You could have killed that boy,” said Justice Mohite-Dere. The judges said they “don’t appreciate this behaviour on the part of educated people” and that “people in the lower strata behave better…”
They reasoned that children fight among themselves and even inside homes. “You don’t precipitate it. It is how you handle them in a balanced… more matured manner. Children are mischievous. If children start behaving like grownups, they are not children,” said Justice Mohite-Dere. The judges said there are children with attention deficit or who are overactive, but they can be counselled.
They noted the society’s WhatsApp group chats on the incident that “defame and malign the boy”. While the neighbour’s advocate said “it won’t be repeated”, the judges said he must tender an unconditional apology and ensure the boy won’t be targeted. “Children in a (housing) society will play, will fight, will beat again, because they are children. They are bound to. If they are not, then who? You? Or me?” asked Justice Chavan. He said, “Let the children play together. Let there be harmony in the society.”
Told by the mother’s advocate that as counterblast to the FIR, the neighbour’s wife filed a petition to declare the boy as a child in conflict with law, the judges questioned how it is maintainable.
The judges posted the matter in-chambers on Dec 4, telling the mother’s advocate to take instructions from her on whether she wants to pursue the case, “because if there is a settlement, it has to be holistic, and we’ll keep the petition pending to know how the petitioner and her son are being treated”.