Calcutta High Court Quashes JJ Act Proceedings Against Child For Driving Car With Blue-Beacon And ‘Judge’ Sign After Inquiry Exceeded Four-Month Limit
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee has quashed the Juvenile Justice Board proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act against a child in conflict with law, arising from allegations that the child drove a four-wheeler fitted with a blue beacon and a dashboard sign reading “judge”, allegedly violated traffic restrictions, and drove rashly without a licence. The Court directed that the pending inquiry be terminated and set aside the case, after finding that the inquiry into the alleged petty offences remained inconclusive beyond the four-month limit prescribed for completion under the Act, even after the available extension period.
Also Read: Confession Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
Based on a written complaint, a general diary entry was registered invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code along with relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the juvenile was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kolkata, where he was initially placed in a shelter home before being released on bail.
The child, represented through his father, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the statutory inquiry contemplated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 had not been completed within the prescribed period. The State opposed the plea, contending that the proceedings were valid and pending consideration before the Board.
The Court observed: "The consequence of the failure to adhere to the provisions as laid down in section 14(2) is mentioned in section 14(4) of the Act as quoted above. In the instant case charge sheet was filed beyond the period of 4(four) months and even after the extended period which expired on 27.05.2024 (i.e. 6 months since the first appearance of the delinquent juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board) the inquiry as stipulated under section 14(2) of the Act remain inconclusive as the plea of the delinquent juvenile had not been recorded till the granting of the stay by this High court on 12.07.2024. Therefore it is clear that in the instant case within the maximum time frame for conclusion of inquiry as mentioned in section 14(4), inquiry has not been concluded".
On facts, the Court observed that “the delinquent juvenile appeared before the Board on 28.11.2023 and as per provision of JJ Act, the inquiry should have been completed by 27.03.2024.” While an extension order had been passed, the Court found that “the order dated 02.02.2024 by which the time was extended is completely bereft of any reason and therefore… it is not a valid extension.”
The Court highlighted: "Courts must avoid a rigid or overtly technical approach and instead favour the conclusion that the persons is a child. It is now settled, that being a welfare legislation the courts should be zealous to see that a juvenile derives full benefits of the provisions of the Act but at the same time, it is also imperative for the courts to ensure that the protection and privileges under the Act are not misused by unscrupulous persons to escape punishments for having committed serious offence.”
On the interpretation of the word “shall” in Section 14(4), the Court held that “considering the true character of beneficial legislation and that non-compliance of such provision might defeat the object of legislation, I am of the view that the word ‘shall’ used in section 14(4) of the JJ Act, is mandatory where the allegation is about committing petty offence by the juvenile.”
The Court recorded that “this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed… as it attracts the mandatory provision of stopping inquiry under section 14(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act. CRR 2378 of 2024 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being JJB/GR Case no. 109 of 2023 pending before JJB Kolkata is hereby quashed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sekhar Basu, Advocate; Mr. Souvik Mitter, Advocate; Md. Ashraf Ali, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Advocate; Ms. Afreen Begum, Advocate
Case Title: Child in Conflict with Law v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 2378 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
