IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2378 of 2024 IA No. CRAN 7 of 2025 Child in conflict with law represented by his father Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioners : Mr. Sekhar Basu Mr. Souvik Mitter Md. Ashraf Ali For the State : Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya Ms. Afreen Begum Heard on : 06.01.2026 Judgment on : 27.01.2026 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Child in conflict with law has prayed for quashing of proceeding being JJB/GR case no. 109/2023 pending before Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata. 2. A Traffic sergeant namely Avik Kumar Sinha of East T.P. guard, while performing duty on 26.11.2023 at about 17.20 hrs, found in front of St. Xavier’s College, that the child in conflict with law was plying one four- wheeler being registration no. WB 02 AC 7549, having blue backon on top and “Judge” written board kept at dash board, and was approaching towards west bound, violating one way traffic rule on Park street from Loudan Street. When the said sergeant tried to stop the vehicle, due to driving through wrong side, the juvenile started to drive in reverse direction and dragged his car again, violating one way rule in a rash and negligent manner, which could have caused severe fatal accident. Finally the sergeant succeeded in stopping the vehicle and on being asked the juvenile replied that his grandfather was a Judge, who retired 18 years back and the car belongs to him and he confessed that he does not possess any driving licence.

3. On the basis of said written complaint Park Street GDE no. 2092 dated 26.11.2023 under sections 279/205/332 of the Indian Penal Code read with various provisions under the Motor Vehicle Acts was started.

4. After completion of investigation charge sheet submitted against the Juvenile and on 28.11.2023 the juvenile was produced before the Board who was pleased to order to keep him at Dhruv Ashram till 12.12.2023. However, on 29.11.2023, the petitioner was released on bail.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the juvenile, Mr. Basu submits that the proceeding is liable to be quashed under section 14(2) read with 14(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (in short JJ Act, 2015) as the inquiry remained inconclusive within the statutory period. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the state opposed the prayer for quashing the proceeding.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State, it appears that in the instant case all the offences alleged against the juvenile are punishable maximum upto 3 years and as such under section 2(45) of the JJ Act, 2015 they are pretty offences.

8. Before going further let me reproduce section 14(2) and 14(4) of the JJ Act which runs as follows:-

(2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension.

(4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated:

Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

9. Therefore under the provisions of section 14(2), the inquiry shall have to be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of first production of juvenile, before the Board unless the period is extended for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, after recording reasons in writing for such extension. In the instant case the delinquent juvenile appeared before the Boa