Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Child For Driving Car With Blue Beacon And 'Judge' Sign As JJ Act Inquiry Exceeded Time Limit
The Calcutta High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act against a child driving a four-wheeler with a blue beacon and a dashboard sign reading "judge", after noting that the inquiry had remained inconclusive beyond the four months prescribed under Section 14(2) of the JJ Act.
The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee 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".
A child was discovered driving a four-wheeler on November 26, 2023, around 5:20 PM by a traffic sergeant. The car had a blue beacon on top and “Judge” written board kept at dash board. The traffic sergeant tried to stop the car as it was violating the one-way traffic rule when the juvenile started driving in the reverse direction.
Finally, the sergeant succeeded in stopping the vehicle, and on being questioned, the juvenile informed that his grandfather was a judge who retired 18 years back, and the car belonged to him. The juvenile also confessed to not having a driver's license.
A complaint was filed for Rash driving (Section 279), False Impersonation (Section 205), and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 332) of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of ivestigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the juvenile, and he was produced before the Baord who ordered to keep him in Dhruv Ashram. The juvenile was released on bail on November 29, 2023.
He approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the inquiry remained conclusive within the statutory period, relying on Section 14(2) and 14(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The court noted that the offences alleged in the present case against a juvenile were punishable upto 3 years and as such under Section 2(4) of the JJ Act, they are petty offences.
Section 14(2) of the JJ Act states, "the inquiry shall have to be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of first production of juvenile, before the Board unless the period is extended for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, after recording reasons in writing for such extension".
The bench noted that in the present case, the juvenile was produced before the board on November 28, 2023; therefore, the inquiry should have been completed by March 23, 2024.
Even though the Act stipulates that the period could be extended for another two months. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the time which was extended was 'completely bereft of any reasons' and is not valid under the JJ Act.
The court further clarified that the word inquiry under the JJ Act has not been defined and noted that inquiry under CPC precedes trial. It was observed that in a criminal proceeding, the inquiry ends and the trial begins specifically when the court frames charges against the accused.
The court noted that in the present case, the chargesheet was filed beyond the prescribed period of four months, and even after the extended period, the inquiry remained inconclusive as the plea of juvenile was not recorded till a stay was imposed by the High Court on July 12, 2024. Therefore, the court held that the inquiry has not been concluded.
The bench further emphasized that the JJ Act was a beneficial piece of legislation aiming to restore and rehabilitate delinquent juvenile in mainstream society. The bench also emphasized that the prescribed time for a speedy inquiry is to avoid repeated appearances of the juvenile and to reduce the impact of such legal complexities in the juvenile's life.
At the same time, the court highlighted that while juveniles must receive the full benefit of the Act, the courts must also remain vigilant to ensure its protective provisions are not misused by unscrupulous individuals to evade accountability for serious offences.
"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", the bench added.
The court further held that the use of the word "shall" in Section 14(4) makes the provision mandatory in cases involving petty offences committed by juveniles and therefore quashed the proceedings under the Act and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Child in conflict with law v The State of West Bengal [CRR 2378 of 2024]