Advocates:
['ABHAY SAMBRE', '', 'PRAJAKTA CHAUDHARI', 'APP', '', 'DEEPA I CHARLEWAR APPOINTED']

1

wp111.22.J.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2022

Nilesh Jaganrao Kamble,

Age: 19 years, Occ: Labour,

R/o Tarfail Ward no.29, Wardha,

Tq. And District Wardha.

....... PETITIONER

...V E R S U S...

1.

State of Maharashtra through Police

Station Officer, Wardha City, Tq. And

District Wardha.

2.

XYZ, Aged about Minor, through her

legal guardian/complainant

Crime No.1235/2017,

P.S. Wardha City.

....… RE

SPONDENT

S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. Prajakta Chaudhari, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhay Sambre,

Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S. M. Ukey, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

Mrs. Deepa I. Charlewar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

VINAY JOSHI

, J.

DATE:

15

^th JUNE,

20

22

.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With their

consent matter is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule,

making the same returnable forthwith.

2.

The petitioner who is facing prosecution before the

Amended as per

order dt.

25/03/2022

2

wp111.22.J.odt

Children Court’s for the offence punishable under section 376 of

the IPC and section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), has challenged the order

dated 23.12.2021 passed in Other Misc. Case No.49/2021, by

which the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay in

filing appeal was came to be rejected.

3.

It reveals that the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board, Wardha has passed an

order of preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 read with

Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, expressing that the

petitioner shall be tried before the Children’s Court.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.03.2018, the petitioner

has preferred an appeal in terms of Section 101 of the Juvenile

Justice Act. However, as there happened to be delay of near about

three years. The petitioner has urged for condonation of delay and

to entertain the appeal. The learned District Judge-1, Wardha vide

impugned order declined to exercise grant of discretionary relief of

condoning the delay.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the procedure adopted by Juvenile Justice Board while

3

wp111.22.J.odt

making preliminary assessment was defective. It is argued that the

order which is sought to be challenged in appeal was illegal and

therefore, the petitioner shall be allowed to test the same in the

appeal. On the point of delay it is argued that the petitioner was

minor at the relevant time and there was nobody to look after

legal proceedings. Moreover, the reason of financial constrain has

been raised. The respondent has objected to condone the delay by

stating that due to sheer negligent attitude delay has been caused.

5.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a

minor at the relevant time and the other reasons stated in the

application, the delay deserves to be condoned. It is settled that

the Courts shall be liberal while deciding the application for

condonation of delay. If delay is condoned at the most the cause

would be decided on merits, rather than throwing on the

technicalities.

6.

In view of that petition stands allowed. The impugned

order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Other Misc. Case No.49/2021, is

hereby quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing appeal is

hereby condoned. The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on

merits.

4

wp111.22.J.odt

7.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made

absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

8.

The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and

paid in accordance with the rules.

JUDGE

NSN

Digitally Signed ByNITIN

SHIVNARAYAN NIKHARE

Signing Date:16.06.2022 17:07