BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) — Victims are perhaps culprits for the Madhya Pradesh government and therefore, those whose houses were attacked by Hindutva mobs during communal violence at the state’s Khargone city on April 10 have been served recovery notices by tribunals for allegedly indulging in vandalism and stone pelting.
Established under the Madhya Pradesh Prevention and Recovery of Damages to Public Property Act, the tribunal has issued a notice to a 12-year-old boy (name withheld as he is a juvenile) — directing him to pay Rs 2.9 lakh as compensation for causing the loss of property, belonging to a woman, during a Ram Navami procession violence.
Apart from him, his father Kalu Khan, a resident of Khargone’s Anand Nagar locality, too have got a separate notice of Rs 4.80 lakh.
The father-son duo have been accused of vandalising and robbing the home of their neighbours (the woman) during the violence.
Denying the allegation, Khan, a driver by profession, said no FIR (first information report) had been lodged against him and his son, yet they were served the recovery notices.
“It was iftar time when the violence broke out, and we were waiting for azaan to have the evening meal to breakfast. We did not even step out of our home,” he said.
Asked how a minor was handed over the notice, Prabhat Prashar, a tribunal member, said it’s a civil matter and not a criminal case where children get protection from the Juvenile Justice Act.
“There is a complaint of vandalism against the boy, and his lawyer failed to prove beyond doubt that the child was not part of the crowd. His parents will have to pay the money as they are responsible for him,” he added.
As they received the notice, said the family, they approached the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court with a prayer to issue direction to quash the order.
Disposing of the matter on September 12, the High Court bench gave the petitioner an option to make an appeal before the tribunal.
Accordingly, the boy, through his mother, has argued before the tribunal that he cannot be considered a “child in conflict with law” since he is not charged with any crime.
Describing the notice as “arbitrary”, “illegal” and “unconstitutional”, the boy then urged the tribunal chairman, Dr SK Mishra (a former judge), to quash it. But his application was rejected on the ground that the tribunal is “not seized with the charges, but the complaint of civil nature filed by the woman”.
This story was originally published in twocircles.net . Read the full story here