Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
X Minor (Through His Elder Brother) - Petitioner
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 24 of 2017
Decided On : 15-11-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mrinal Madhav with Mr. Tarunesh Kumar, Mr. Kaushikesh Kumar and Mr. Madhukant Jha, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with ASI Mool Chand.
The main legal point established is that the Rules governing the termination of proceedings in juvenile cases are directory and not mandatory, and the Board has the discretion to extend the period of concluding the inquiry for valid reasons.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice - Termination of Proceedings - 2000 JJ Act, 2007 Rules, 2009 Rules - Summary Inquiry, Serious Offences, Non-Serious Offences
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a child in conflict with law, sought termination of the proceedings on the ground that they were not concluded within 4 months, citing Rule 13(7) of the 2007 Rules. The appeal impugning the decision was dismissed, and the petitioner was charged with a non-serious offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rules were directory and not mandatory, and terminated the inquiry against the petitioner, considering the delay and the nature of the offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in concluding the inquiry warranted termination of the proceedings, and whether the Rules were mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules were directory and not mandatory, and termination of the inquiry would not be an automatic consequence of delay. It emphasized that the Board had the power to extend the period of concluding the inquiry for valid reasons.
Final Decision: The court terminated the inquiry against the petitioner, considering the delay and the nature of the offence.
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.11.2016, whereby the appeal of the petitioner impugning the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 04.08.2016 has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner, a child in conflict with law, is an accused in FIR No.1362/2014 under Section 308/34 IPC, P.S. Madhu Vihar.
3. Petitioner sought termination of the proceedings qua him on the ground that the proceedings were not concluded within a period of 4 months and submitted that in terms of Rule 13(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules), proceedings which are not concluded within a period of four months are liable to be terminated.
4. The Board by its order dated 04.08.2016 was of the view that the rules applicable were the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Rules) and not the 2007 Rules and further under proviso to Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2000 (sic.2014) (hereinafter referred to as the 2000 JJ Act), the Board could extend the period of completion of inquiry having regard to the circumstances of the case. The 2007 Rules are rules framed by the Central Government and the 2009 Rules are rules framed by Delhi Government.
5. The Board was of the view that since the matter was pending before another Board and not transferred to the said Board, keeping in view the exigencies, it was sufficient ground to extend the period for completion of the inquiry.
6. By the impugned order the appeal of the petitioner impugning the decision was dismissed noticing that several adjournments had been sought by the counsel for the petitioner and on the request of the counsel for the petitioner several witnesses were discharged un-examined and the evidence could not be concluded.
7. The Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner who wanted to take benefit of the welfare provision had in fact delayed the progress of the trial and several public witnesses could not be examined or cross examined because of adjournments sought by the petitioner himself. Further keeping in view the number of matters pending before the Juvenile Board, the Appellate Court was of the view that there were sufficient grounds to extend the period of inquiry and directions were issued to the Board to expedite the inquiry and conclude the same at an early date.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is charged with a non serious offence and as such in terms of Rule 13(7) of the 2007 Rules, in all cases except where the nature of alleged offence is serious, delay beyond four to six months leads to the termination of the proceedings.
9. Learned counsel submits that even if the 2009 Rules were to be applied, Rule 13(7) of the 2009 Rules is Pari Materia to Rule 13(7) of the 2007 Rules, and as such the proceedings were liable to be terminated.
10. Reference may be had to the provisions of the Act as also the Rules. Section 14 of the 2000 JJ Act reads as under:
“14. Inquiry by Board regarding juvenile.
(1) Where a juvenile having been charged with the offence is produced before a Board, the Board shall hold the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may make such order in relation to the juvenile as it deems fit:
Provided that an inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement, unless the period is extended by the Board having regard to the circumstances of the case and in special cases after recording the reasons in writing for such extension.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of cases of the Board at every six months, and shall direct the Board to increase the frequency of its sittings or may cause the constitution of additional Boards.”
11. Section 14 of the 2000 JJ Act stipulates that an inquiry by the Board is to be concluded wi
