X Minor Thr. Father vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 2700 Del

*                THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +    CRL.REV.P. 130/2012

                                             Date of Decision: 24.04.2012

X MINOR THR. FATHER                                 ..... Petitioner
                  Through                Mr. Anant K. Asthana, Advocate
                                         with Mr. Rohan J. Alva and Mr.
                                         Bhupesh C. Samad, Advocates.
                        Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
                  Through                Mr M.N. Dudeja, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition assails orders dated 19.12.2011 and 21.01.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board-3 (JJB) in FIR No.186/2011 under Sections 323/341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar whereby the JJB has condoned the delay in filing the charge-sheet.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on 19.9.2011. The limitation for filing the charge-sheet was 3 months i.e. 18.12.2011. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has not been filed within the period of limitation which expired on 18.12.2011 and that the IO had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the charge-sheet and the same was allowed vide the impugned order. The said order is assailed in the present petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

for the State.

4. It is seen from the record that limitation for filing the charge sheet being three months expired on 18.12.2011 and that this date being Sunday, the limitation would be taken to be as 19.12.2011. On 19.12.2011, the IO made a request to the JJB for extension of three days time for filing of charge-sheet on the ground that 18th December being Sunday, the signature of Senior Officers on the charge-sheet could not be obtained. The said request was allowed by the JJB on the same date. As per the under-mentioned order:

"Pr: JWO/SI Ranbir He requested for three days more time to file challan. Heard. Three days time given."

5. Thereafter objection was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of extension of time for filing the challan. Vide order dated 21.01.2012, while maintaining its power to grant extension in filing the challan, the JJB observed that "as per the provisions of Cr. P.C. if the last date of filing any application falls on a holiday, it can be filed on next working day. Hence, the application was filed within the period of limitation. It was also recorded that IO was not able to file the challan within limitation and so the Board should grant extension of time before the expiry of limitation period.

6. As noted above, the limitation period expired on 19.12.2011, 18.12.2011 being Sunday. Instead of filing challan on this date, the IO sought extension of three days time which seems to have been granted by the JJB in routine. No justifiable reason was mentioned in the application filed by the IO nor in the order dated 19.12.2011 by the

member of JJB. Further the extension is seen to have been given by one of the members of the Board and not by the Principal Magistrate of the JJ Board. It is also seen that though the extension of time was sought on the ground that the signature of senior officers on the challan could not be obtained, but, from the challan it is seen that the signatures of senior officers such as SHO and ACP were already there on the challan with date 19.12. 2011. That shows that challan in all respect was ready for filing on 19.12.2011, but the IO still sought three days time on the false ground of not having taken signatures of senior officers.

7. In the case of Sheela Barse Vs. UOI, 1986 SC 1773 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:

"We would also direct that where a complaint is filed or first information report is lodged against a child below the age of 16 years (now it is 18 years under new Act) for an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the investigation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of the First Information Report and if the investigation is not completed within this time, the case against the child must be treated as closed."

8. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, a circular being circular No. 29/2007/CMT was issued by the office of Commissioner of Police which stipulated under mentioned direction to all the concerned police officers:

"In view of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme and Juvenile Justice Board, the investigation of all such cases should be completed within the period

of 3 months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of First Information Report and if the investigation is not completed within this time, the case against the child must be treated as closed.

Since new Act Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has replaced old Act of 1986 and as per Sec. 2 (K) age of Juvenile or child is defined as "a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.""

9. In view of the above discussion, the conclusion comes that there is no provision granting power of extension of time to file the challan and that being so, the impugned order suffers from illegality and thus not sustainable in law. The order dated 19.12.2011 whereby extension was granted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 whereby the objection of the petitioner was rejected being not sustainable. They are accordingly set aside. The petition disposed of accordingly.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 24, 2012 awanish