Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Monu @ Gulu on 18 July, 2019
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 205 of 2019
Decided on July 18, 2019
.
_____________________________________________________________
State of Himachal Pradesh .........Petitioner
Versus
Monu @ Gulu ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.
_____________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Sudhir
Bhatnagar, Additional Advocates
General with Mr. Kunal Thakur,
Deputy Advocate General, for the
petitioner.
For the respondent: Nemo.
_____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
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"), 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.
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:56:16 :::HCHP -2-2. Case under aforesaid provisions came to be registered against the respondent-accused (in short "the accused") on .
10.12.2016, vide FIR No. 321, dated 10.12.2016 registered at Police Station, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
3. 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.
4. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General 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. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:56:16 :::HCHP -3- 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.
5. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:56:16 :::HCHP -4- concerned, rightly observed that procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure would not prevail upon the special .
enactment.
6. 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.
July 18, 2019
(Vikrant)
to (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:56:16 :::HCHP