Bombay High Court
Nilesh Jaganrao Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 15 June, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 wp111.22.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2022
Nilesh Jaganrao Kamble,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Tarfail Ward no.29, Wardha,
Tq. And District Wardha. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through Police
Station Officer, Wardha City, Tq. And
District Wardha.
Amended as per 2. XYZ, Aged about Minor, through her
order dt. legal guardian/complainant
25/03/2022
Crime No.1235/2017,
P.S. Wardha City. ....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Prajakta Chaudhari, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhay Sambre,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ukey, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mrs. Deepa I. Charlewar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE: 15th JUNE, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With their
consent matter is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule,
making the same returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner who is facing prosecution before the
2 wp111.22.J.odt
Children Court's for the offence punishable under section 376 of
the IPC and section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), has challenged the order
dated 23.12.2021 passed in Other Misc. Case No.49/2021, by
which the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay in
filing appeal was came to be rejected.
3. It reveals that the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board, Wardha has passed an
order of preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 read with
Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, expressing that the
petitioner shall be tried before the Children's Court.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.03.2018, the petitioner
has preferred an appeal in terms of Section 101 of the Juvenile
Justice Act. However, as there happened to be delay of near about
three years. The petitioner has urged for condonation of delay and
to entertain the appeal. The learned District Judge-1, Wardha vide
impugned order declined to exercise grant of discretionary relief of
condoning the delay.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the procedure adopted by Juvenile Justice Board while
3 wp111.22.J.odt
making preliminary assessment was defective. It is argued that the
order which is sought to be challenged in appeal was illegal and
therefore, the petitioner shall be allowed to test the same in the
appeal. On the point of delay it is argued that the petitioner was
minor at the relevant time and there was nobody to look after
legal proceedings. Moreover, the reason of financial constrain has
been raised. The respondent has objected to condone the delay by
stating that due to sheer negligent attitude delay has been caused.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a
minor at the relevant time and the other reasons stated in the
application, the delay deserves to be condoned. It is settled that
the Courts shall be liberal while deciding the application for
condonation of delay. If delay is condoned at the most the cause
would be decided on merits, rather than throwing on the
technicalities.
6. In view of that petition stands allowed. The impugned
order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Other Misc. Case No.49/2021, is
hereby quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing appeal is
hereby condoned. The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on
merits.
4 wp111.22.J.odt
7. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
8. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and
paid in accordance with the rules.
JUDGE
NSN
Digitally Signed ByNITIN
SHIVNARAYAN NIKHARE
Signing Date:16.06.2022 17:07
