The Calcutta High Court quashed all proceedings against a minor accused of rash driving after holding that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to complete the inquiry within the mandatory time limit under the JJ Act. The Court ruled that the unexplained delay violated statutory safeguards meant to protect juveniles from prolonged legal trauma.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed all legal proceedings against a minor boy who was accused of rash and negligent driving, misuse of a beacon-fitted vehicle, and violation of traffic rules, after holding that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to complete the inquiry within the time period mandated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The case arose from an incident that took place on November 26, 2023, when the minor was allegedly caught driving a car fitted with a blue beacon and a “Judge” nameplate in the Park Street area of Kolkata.
According to the police, the vehicle was being driven in violation of a one-way traffic restriction. When the police stopped the vehicle, the boy admitted that he did not possess a valid driving licence. He also informed the police that the car belonged to his grandfather, who is a retired judge.
Following the incident, the police registered a case against the minor under various legal provisions. These included charges related to rash and negligent driving, false personation due to the use of the “Judge” nameplate, and relevant sections of the Juvenile Justice Act. The juvenile was first produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on November 28, 2023, after which an inquiry was formally initiated.
While hearing the matter, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the law clearly mandates strict timelines for completing inquiries involving juveniles.
The Court noted that under Section 14(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the inquiry must be completed within four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. In this case, the four-month period ended on March 27, 2024.
The judge further pointed out that although the law allows the Juvenile Justice Board to extend the inquiry period by a maximum of two additional months, such an extension must be supported by written reasons.
However, no such reasons were recorded by the Board in the present case. The Court noted that the extension granted till February 2, 2024, was done without any justification on record.
The judge observed,
“Under the provisions of section 14(2), the inquiry shall have to be completed within a period of four months… 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 High Court held that the failure to comply with the statutory timeline amounted to a clear violation of the safeguards provided to juveniles under the law. The Court emphasized that these safeguards are meant to protect children from prolonged legal proceedings, mental stress, and unnecessary trauma.
While quashing the proceedings against the minor, the Court also addressed concerns regarding the misuse of juvenile protection laws. It clarified that although there may be instances where such protections are misused, courts cannot ignore mandatory legal requirements laid down by Parliament.
The judgment added,
“This court is not oblivious of the concern that juvenile protections may sometimes be misused. But at the same time, legal safeguards and timelines exist to prevent undue harassment and trauma to children,”
The ruling highlights the binding nature of procedural timelines under the Juvenile Justice Act and serves as a clear reminder to Juvenile Justice Boards across the country that statutory mandates must be followed strictly. The decision reinforces the principle that failure to adhere to prescribed procedures can result in the collapse of criminal proceedings, even in cases involving serious allegations.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Martyrs’ Day
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
