State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Monu @ Gulu

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short

“the Actâ€), challenge has been laid to order dated 3.10.2018, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, District

Solan, HP, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17-4 of 2018, under S.379 read with S.34 IPC, whereby final report submitted by the concerned police

station has been returned being not in consonance with the law.

Case under aforesaid provisions came to be registered against the respondent-accused (in short “the accusedâ€) on 10.12.2016, vide FIR No.

321, dated 10.12.2016 registered at Police Station, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

As per Rule 10 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, final report after investigation of the case is

required to be filed by the Investigating Agency before the Juvenile Justice Board at the earliest and in any case, not beyond the period of two months

from the date of information to the police. Since in the case at hand, final report came to be filed before Juvenile Justice Board after the prescribed

period of two months, Juvenile Justice Board vide impugned order dated 3.10.2018, returned the final report to the concerned Police Station. In the

aforesaid backdrop, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside impugned order dated 3.10.2018 and to

punish the accused in accordance with law.

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and perused material available on record vis-Ã -vis reasoning assigned by the Juvenile Justice

Board while passing impugned order dated 3.10.2018, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate

General that learned court below, while passing impugned order has failed to appreciate the facts as well as law, rather this Court finds that though

final report after lodging of FIR was prepared much before the prescribed period of two months, but same came to be filed before the Juvenile Justice

Board after nineteen months of lodging of FIR. Rule 10 (6) clearly provides that final report by the Investigating Agency should be filed before the

Juvenile Justice Board at the earliest and in any case not beyond the period of two months from the date of information to the police, save and except

in those cases where, it was reasonably not known that the person involved in the offence was a child, but even in such like cases, application is

required to be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking extension of time. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the prosecution that the delay

in presenting the final report occurred on account of the fact that it was not reasonably known to the prosecution that the accused involved in the

offence was a child.

The words “in any case not beyond the period of two months†used in Rule 10 (6) clearly suggest that provision contained under Rule 10 (6) is

mandatory and same is to be scrupulously adhered to. No cogent and convincing reasons came to be assigned by the Investigating Agency in support

of delay in presenting the final report, which admittedly came to be filed after nineteen months of lodging of FIR. Since Juvenile justice Act, 2016 and

Rules framed thereunder are special enactment, learned court below while returning the final report to the police concerned, rightly observed that

procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure would not prevail upon the special enactment.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below and as such, same is

allowed and upheld, therefore, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.