A Juvenile Justice Board must consider protest petitions on their merits and cannot dismiss them on procedural technicalities, especially when serious allegations of investigative deficiencies are raised.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "the Cr.P.C."), or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "the BNSS"), to challenge the order dated July 3, 2024, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter "the JJB"), Kolkata, in JJB No. 56 of 2022. The order discharged opposite party no.2, Daksh Jaiswal, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), from the proceedings stemming from Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, 427, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/original complainant, Rajesh Yadav, questioned the impropriety, illegality and irregularity of the impugned order and prayed for the intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice.

3. The essence of the prosecution's case is that on June 2, 2022, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station. He alleged that some assailants, along with a CCL, namely Daksh Jaiswal, assaulted him physically and abused him while he was installing a CCTV camera at a newly acquired go-down belonging to one Shobhnath Yadav. Following this complaint, Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 122 of 2022 was registered. The medical report corroborated the injuries sustained by the petitioner, lending credence to his allegation of assault.

4. A pivotal procedural development occurred on July 8, 2022, when the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Kolkata, recognizing the juvenility of Daksh Jaiswal, correctly relegated his case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata, for trial and disposal. It was transferred in strict adherence to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter, "the JJ Act"), which mandates a distinct adjudicatory framework for children in conflict with law to ensure their welfare and rehabilitation.

5. The gravamen of the petitioner's apprehension crystallized when, on September 18, 2023, he came to know that the police had filed a charge- sheet, being No. 167 of 2023 dated September 15, 2023, in the said case. While this charge sheet implicated the adult co-accused, it notably sought the discharge of the CCL, Daksh Jaiswal, asserting "lack of sufficient evidence" to establish his involvement. A significant procedural anomaly, pointed out by the petitioner, is that this final report was signed and submitted by one Noor Kalam Sekh, Sgt. (I) of Police, explicitly identified as being "of Tala P.S.," despite the FIR having been registered and the initial investigation conducted by Amherst Street P.S. The petitioner vehemently contends that throughout this investigative phase, he was never called by the police to record his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 181 of the BNSS), nor was he requested to produce any necessary proofs or evidence, including the crucial CCTV footage, which he had in his custody. This alleged omission, he argues, directly led to the purported "lack of evidence."

6. Feeling aggrieved and uninformed about the true trajectory of the proceedings concerning the CCL before the JJB, the petitioner sought fresh legal advice and undertook an inspection of the JJB records. It was then that he became aware of the opportunity to file a 'Narazi' petition (protest petition) against the police's final report. He