Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a child in conflict with law, holding that failure to complete a Juvenile Justice Board enquiry within the statutory six-month period mandates termination of the case when the alleged offences are petty in nature.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the timeline prescribed under Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is mandatory. The court observed that non-compliance defeats the object of the legislation, intended to ensure speedy enquiry and limit the adverse impact of prolonged legal proceedings on children.
The case arose from a traffic incident on November 26, 2023, when a minor was intercepted by a traffic sergeant in front of St. Xavier’s College on Park Street. Police alleged that the child was driving a four-wheeler on the wrong side of a one-way road without a valid driving licence. The vehicle was allegedly fitted with a blue beacon and carried a board bearing the word “Judge”. The police further alleged that the child attempted to evade interception by driving in a rash and negligent manner.
Based on the complaint, a case was registered alleging offences under the penal law and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted and the child was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, which initially directed that he be kept at a correctional home before granting bail the following day.
Before the High Court, the child contended that the enquiry had not been completed within the time limit prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court noted that all the alleged offences were punishable with a maximum sentence of up to three years and therefore fell within the category of petty offences. Section 14 requires the Board to complete an enquiry within four months from the date of first production of the child, extendable by up to two months only if reasons are recorded in writing.
Justice Mukherjee found that although the Board had extended the time, the order granting extension did not record any reasons. The court further observed that even after expiry of the maximum six-month period, the enquiry remained inconclusive.
Holding that the Act provides that such proceedings “shall stand terminated” if the enquiry remains inconclusive, the court quashed the case.