ARNAPURNA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set-aside the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in J.G.R. No. 40 of 2013 rejecting the application filed on behalf of the present petitioner to terminate the proceeding since the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated period, not even within a period of two years after production of the J.C.L. before the Juvenile Justice Board. The J.C.L. was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/506/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act along with other family members of the victim who were separately charge-sheeted for being adults. The allegation against the present petitioner C.C.L. who happened to be the niece of the victim was that she also tortured the victim relating to demand of dowry.

(2.) It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 2001. The victim lodged the F.I.R. in the year 2013 alleging dowry demand and torture against her in-laws. She arrayed the present C.C.L. as an accused who was thirteen-year-old at the time of the alleged occurrence. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner further that considering the age of the C.C.L. at the time of the alleged occurrence, it is improbable and impossible that she could have joined other in-laws of the victim to commit cruelty towards the victim so as to be liable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Be that as it may, it was submitted that the petitioner was produced before the Board on 05.09.2013 and the charges were framed on 26.12013. Since the proceeding was not concluded, one application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice Board on behalf of the petitioner on 21.05.2015 to terminate the proceeding as per Rule 13.(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short, "2007, Rules"). The said application has been rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board by the impugned order with the observation that there was delay in disposal of the case since it was brought to the notice of the Court that there was a talk of compromise between the parties for which the informant-victim could not be examined. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that it was submitted on behalf of the State that there is no such provision for termination of proceeding in the relevant Orissa Rules of 2000 and it was submitted that Central Rule was not applicable to the present proceeding.

(3.) The Rule 13 (7) of 2007 Rules provides as follows :