Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 522 (ORI)

Arnapurna Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

2018-05-08

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P.DAS, J. - This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set-aside the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in J.G.R.No.40 of 2013 rejecting the application filed on behalf of the present petitioner to terminate the proceeding since the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated period, not even within a period of two years after production of the J.C.L. before the Juvenile Justice Board. 2. The J.C.L. was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/506/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act along with other family members of the victim who were separately charge-sheeted for being adults. The allegation against the present petitioner C.C.L. who happened to be the niece of the victim was that she also tortured the victim relating to demand of dowry. 3. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 2001. The victim lodged the F.I.R. in the year 2013 alleging dowry demand and torture against her in-laws. She arrayed the present C.C.L. as an accused who was thirteen-year-old at the time of the alleged occurrence. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner further that considering the age of the C.C.L. at the time of the alleged occurrence, it is improbable and impossible that she could have joined other in-laws of the victim to commit cruelty towards the victim so as to be liable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Be that as it may, it was submitted that the petitioner was produced before the Board on 05.09.2013 and the charges were framed on 26.12.2013. Since the proceeding was not concluded, one application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice Board on behalf of the petitioner on 21.05.2015 to terminate the proceeding as per Rule 13 (7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short, “2007, Rules”). The said application has been rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board by the impugned order with the observation that there was delay in disposal of the case since it was brought to the notice of the Court that there was a talk of compromise between the parties for which the informant-victim could not be examined. The said application has been rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board by the impugned order with the observation that there was delay in disposal of the case since it was brought to the notice of the Court that there was a talk of compromise between the parties for which the informant-victim could not be examined. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that it was submitted on behalf of the State that there is no such provision for termination of proceeding in the relevant Orissa Rules of 2000 and it was submitted that Central Rule was not applicable to the present proceeding. 4. The Rule 13 (7) of 2007 Rules provides as follows : “13 –Post-production processes by the Board: xx xx xx xx (7) In all other cases except where the nature of alleged offence is serious, delay beyond four to six months shall lead to the termination of the proceedings.” There being no definition as to non-serious offences, it has been provided under Rule 11 (9) of 2007 Rules as follows : xx xx xx xx (11) Pre and Post-production action of Police and other agencies: xx xx xx xx (9) For all other cases involving offences of non-serious nature (entailing a punishment of less than 7 years imprisonment for adults) and cases where apprehension is not necessary in the interest of the juvenile, the Police or the Juvenile or the Child Welfare Officer from the nearest Police Station, shall intimate the parents or guardian of the juvenile about forwarding the information regarding nature of offence alleged to be committed by their child or ward along with his socio-economic background to the Board, which shall have the power to call the juvenile for subsequent hearings.” The mandate for early disposal of the proceeding against C.C.L. was incorporated in the Juvenile Justice Act by way of amendment in the year 2006. By way of amendment, it was provided in Section 14 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2006) (in short, “2006 Act”) that an enquiry shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement unless the period is extended by the Board having regard to the circumstances of the case and in special cases after recording the reasons in writing for such extension. Thereafter, the Central Rules as 2007 Rules came into force incorporating the time limit for disposal of the proceeding and its termination if not disposed of, and hence, the said provision could not have been incorporated in the Rule of the State of the year 2000. That apart, the matter has been finally included in the statute in Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. In Section 14 (2) of 2015 Act, it has been provided as follows : (2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension.” Further Section 14 (4) provides as follows : (4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated: The Act has also defined petty offence under Section 2 (45) as follows : (45) “petty offences” includes the offences for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years; 5. In the present case, the petitioner-C.C.L. has been charged for the offences under Section 498-A/506/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and maximum period of punishment is up to three years for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. 6. Thus, as per record, the petitioner C.C.L. is facing trial for a petty offence and the trial has not been completed within the statutory period. It is also not found on record as to whether there was any extension of time by the appropriate authority or there was any consideration for that. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the position of law, the C.C.L. was entitled to seek termination of the proceeding since the proceeding was not completed within the mandatory period which has been illegally rejected by the learned trial court. 8. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the position of law, the C.C.L. was entitled to seek termination of the proceeding since the proceeding was not completed within the mandatory period which has been illegally rejected by the learned trial court. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in J.G.R. Case No.40 of 2013 is set-aside and the proceeding is terminated so far as the present petitioner-C.C.L. is concerned and the C.C.L. is set at liberty. The Criminal revision is accordingly, allowed. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Revision allowed.