The court emphasized the need to balance the protection of juveniles' privacy and confidentiality with the petitioner's right to access the charge-sheet for pursuing legal remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Anil Jindal to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.01.2016 of Juvenile Justice Board-II whereby copy of the charge-sheet in case FIR No.518/2015 registered at Police Station Chhawala was not provided to him. The revision petition is contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner is the complainant; the FIR was lodged on his complaint on 23.08.2015 when he reported that his son was kidnapped by respondent No.2 and was not traceable. Shortly after the registration of the FIR, body of his missing son was recovered. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.2 and his cousin (respondent No.3) before the Juvenile Justice Board-II.

3. It is urged by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has filed proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to seek appropriate directions to ensure fair/proper investigation; the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation carried out in this case. He had suspected the involvement of some other individuals whose role has not been investigated. The petitioner’s contention is that to pursue his remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency against respondents No.2 and 3 is required to be given to him.

4. The trial court by the impugned judgment declined to provide the charge-sheet primarily to maintain complete confidentiality in respect of the matters of juveniles.

5. Undisputedly, under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 2006 and Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Rules, 2009, the juvenile has a right to privacy and confidentiality and it is to be protected by all means and through all the stages of the proceedings and care and protection processes. It is also not in dispute that records in respect of the juvenile are to be kept in strict confidence and in safe place and not to be easily accessible.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner has lost his minor son. Being unsatisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating agency to find out all the perpetrators of the crime, he has initiated proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Apparently, to pursue the said proceedings, charge-sheet/final report submitted by the investigating agency before the Juvenile Justice Board is quite relevant. It is relevant to note that the petitioner at the time of lodging the report/FIR had named respondent No.2 as ‘suspect’. Apparently, he was aware of the name and identity of respondent No.2 that time. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner is a crucial witness and has been examined by the investigating agency as PW-1. In his deposition, he named respondent No.2, Juvenile, to be one of the accused persons responsible for his son’s murder. He identified both the respondents No.2 and 3 before Juvenile Justice Board. Similarly, PW-2 (Shelkha Jindal), petitioner’s wife and PW-3 (Sanjay Jindal) petitioner’s younger brother have given statements naming the respondents in their deposition. In the deposition of PW-4 (ASI Jagat Singh), names of respondents No.2 and 3 find mention.

7. The petitioner has placed on record photocopies of the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 recorded before the trial court. These copies have been made available by applying fluid on the names of respondents No.2 and 3 in their statements to conceal their identity. Similar course can be adopted by the trial court while furnishing charge-sheet/final report to the petitioner to protect the interest of the respondents No.2 and 3 as well that of the petitioner’s right to avail proper remedies for his dissatisfaction regarding fair investigation allegedly carried out by the investigating agency.

8. In the petition it was specifically mentioned by petitioner