Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Ankit Kumar on 24 June, 2019
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2019
Date of Decision: 24.6.2019.
___________________________________________________________
[
.
State of H.P. .........Petitioner.
Versus
Ankit Kumar ..........Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Sanjeev Sood,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Kunal
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.
______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of the respondent.
2. 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 Act"), laying therein challenge to order dated 3.10.2018, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, District Solan, HP, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18/4 of 2018, under Sections 323 and 34 of the IPC, whereby final report submitted by the concerned police station has been returned being not inconsonance with the law, State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Case under Sections 324 and 34 IPC, came to be registered against the respondent accused (in short "the accused") on 4.4.2018, vide FIR No. 98/2018 at PS. Nalagarh District Solan, H.P. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP -2-4. 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 a 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.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-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. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General that 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 three 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 cause 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 person involved in the offence was child, but even in such like cases, application is required to be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP -3- seeking extension of time. In the case at hand, it is none of the case of the prosecution that delay in presenting the final report occurred on account of the fact that it was not reasonably known to the prosecution that accused .
involved in the offence was a child.
6. 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 three 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 Cr.PC would not prevail upon the special enactment.
7. 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.
24th June, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP