IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.203 of 2008 ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 17.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Sarai ps case no. 57 of 1994 filed for offences under section 384 of the I.P.C. having the maximum punishment of three years or fine or both. The case of the petitioner is that he is a juvenile as the same would appear from order dated 30.5.1995 granting bail to the petitioner. In the aforesaid order, the learned magistrate noticed that petitioner is of tender age and appears to be a minor. The petitioner refers to annexure 3, a certificate dated 4.9.1991, granted by Central School, Bailey Road, Patna stating the date of birth of the petitioner to be 5.2.1980. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet whereafter cognizance was taken for offences under section 384 I.P.C., on 24.7.1996. Thereafter the case was transferred to another court for trial. Charges were framed against the petitioner and two others on 25.6.1997. Petitioner’s case was splitted as he was a juvenile. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of petitioner proceeded in the court of ACJM, Hajipur. No evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution on 8.2.2003 and 20.2.2003. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the case was directed to be heard by a juvenile court, as such, the case was again placed in the file of the ACJM, Hajipur as it was discharging the function of the juvenile board. He also submits that from 6.7.2005 up till 10.6.2007, no witness was produced. Only on 11.6.2007 a witness was - 2 - produced, on which date petitioner did not appear on account of unavoidable circumstances, consequently the magistrate issued NBW against him. He submits that he has already filed a quashing application against order issuing Non Bailable Warrant of arrest, which is pending hearing. The Apex court in the case of Sheela Barse and another Vs. the Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1773, has laid down guidelines for trial of accused, in respect of children below age of 16 years. It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had noticed the petitioner to be of very tender age, on 30.5.1995, the date he was granted bail. The school certificate also shows that on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.7.1994, the petitioner would be hardly 14 years of age. In the case of Sheela Barse (Supra), the Apex court has observed that the trial/enquiry in respect of a child below 16 years of age should not be continued for more than six months in case of offence for which maximum punishment is seven years. I may quote relevant extract of para 12 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted herein below:- 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 for an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the investigation shall be competed 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. If within three months, the charge sheet is filed against the child in case of an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the case must be tried and disposed of within a further period of six months at the outside and this period should be inclusive of the time taken up in committal proceedings, if any. In the instant case, it appears that the trial of the petitioner was splitted in the year 1997, and charges were framed on 8/10.2.2003, and since then up till 11.6.2007, trial remained pending and on 11.6.2007 only one witness was - 3 - examined. Unfortunately, the petitioner was absent on the aforesaid date. It would be relevant to notice here that the trial in respect of other accused persons continued in regular courts and ended up in their acquittal in the year 1998, whereas trial of the petitioner has continued, ever since it was splitted in the year 1997. It is true that petitioner did not appear on 11.6.2007, on which date one defence witness was produced. However, there would be no denial of the fact that trial of the petitioner which was splitted in the year 1997, and charge was framed way back on 8/10.2.2003. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Sheela Barse, this court orders as follows:- The petitioner would appear before the juvenile court, Vaishali at Hajipur within a period of five weeks from today. On such appearance before juvenile court/board, he would be allowed to remain on previous bail. The enquiry/trial of the petitioner would be completed within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the juvenile board. In case the enquiry (trial) is not concluded within the aforesaid period the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Sarai P. S. Case no. 57 of 1994 will be deemed to be quashed. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)