State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sachin

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the State has assailed order dated 06.07.2020, passed by the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection) Board, Solan, District Solan, HP, in FIR No. 105 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P.

under Sections 379 and 411, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which stands defined as petty offences under Section 2 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, vide which order, the final report submitted before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection) Board, Solan, stands returned to the concerned Police Station by the learned Principal Magistrate on the ground that the same

has been filed beyond the statutory period of two months, as envisaged in Rule 10(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model

Rules, 2016.

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate is not sustainable

in the eyes of law as learned Principal Magistrate has erred in not appreciating that the report in issue could not be filed within the statutory time

period due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Accordingly, he submits that the delay in filing the final report is to be condoned in terms of the orders

passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this extremely important aspect of the matter, has been ignored by the learned Magistrate while passing

the impugned order.

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the

contention of learned Additional Advocate General. It is not in dispute that report in terms of Rule 10(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Model Rules, 2016, has to be submitted within the period of two months as from the date of information of the incident to the police. In

this case, the FIR was registered on 30.10.2019. In other words, report of information to the police is to be taken to be 30.10.2019. As from the said

date, two months’ period expired on 30.12.2019. The report in issue was prepared on 06.03.2020 and was presented before the learned Principal

Magistrate on 16.05.2020. Even the preparation of final report was beyond the period of two months within which the report was otherwise required

to be submitted by the Police. The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that delay has occurred on account of COVID-19 pandemic

lockdown, cannot be accepted. This I say so for the reason that this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that COVID-19 pandemic lockdown was

announced in the State somewhere in the fourth week of March, 2020 and before that State machinery was functioning properly. As already

mentioned above, the period of 60 days in this case expired on 30th of December, 2019 and there was no COVID pandemic lockdown in vogue at the

relevant time. Thus, delay in fkiling the report is apparent on the face of the record.

In view of discussion made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General, this petition

being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of notice itself.