$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5012/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21030/2026 CCL S @ M .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Mr. Partha Sharma, Ms. Palak Garg, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. . ....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Children’s Court/ASJ-05, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CA No. 59/2026 titled “Savita Devi v. S”, whereby the learned Appellate Court directed a fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the petitioner/CCL. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/CCL had already undergone a preliminary assessment under Sections 14 and 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JJ Act’), pursuant to which a preliminary assessment report was prepared. He submits that, despite the said assessment having already This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:03:24 been conducted, the learned Appellate Court, after a lapse of about one year, directed the petitioner/CCL to undergo a fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation at an appropriate Government hospital, which, according to him, is contrary to the scheme of Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act. 4. He further submits that the petitioner’s mother recently passed away and, as a result, the petitioner/CCL is under considerable mental and emotional distress. According to learned counsel, any fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation conducted at this stage may not accurately reflect the petitioner/CCL’s mental and psychological condition at the relevant time. 5. Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance notice, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity as the Court has merely directed a fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the petitioner/CCL for the purposes of adjudication of the appeal. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The impugned order discloses that the learned Appellate Court has recorded reasons for directing a fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the petitioner/CCL. The learned Appellate Court has observed that such evaluation is necessary for an effective adjudication of the appeal and for examining the correctness and legality of the preliminary assessment undertaken by the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) under Section 15 of the JJ Act. The learned Appellate Court has required the expert Board to furnish its opinion on the petitioner’s mental and intellectual capacity, his ability to understand the nature and consequences of the alleged offence, his emotional maturity and such other factors that may assist the Court in deciding the pending appeal. The impugned direction is, therefore, purely procedural and is intended only to aid the adjudication of the appeal. It neither adjudicates This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:03:24 the rights of the parties nor records any finding against the petitioner. 8. The submission that the learned Appellate Court could not have directed a fresh psychiatric and psychological evaluation after the lapse of approximately one year from the earlier assessment is misconceived. The mere lapse of time does not render such a procedural direction impermissible where the learned Appellate Court considers the same necessary for an effective adjudication of the appeal. The earlier preliminary assessment report continues to remain on record and shall necessarily be considered while deciding the appeal. The impugned direction neither displaces nor nullifies the earlier preliminary assessment, which continues to remain part of the record and shall be considered by the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal. At this stage, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, the impugned order came to be passed on 29.05.2026 during the pendency of the appeal. The mere passage of time occasioned during the adjudication of a duly instituted statutory appeal cannot, by itself, denude the learned Appellate Court of its jurisdiction to pass such procedural directions as it considers necessary for an effective adjudication of the appeal. Acceptance of the petitioner’s contention would, in effect, render the statutory appellate remedy otiose, for every appeal against an order under Section 15 of the JJ Act would inevitably consume time before its adjudication. 10. The reliance placed on the timeline prescribed under Section 14(3) of the JJ Act is equally misplaced. In Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2024 INSC 387, the Supreme Court has held that the period prescribed under Section 14(3) is directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the mere expiry of the prescribed period does not, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:03:24 by itself, invalidate the proceedings. 11. In the present case, the learned Appellate Court has neither discarded nor substituted the earlier preliminary assessment. It has merely sought an additional expert opinion to effectively examine the correctness of the preliminary assessment while adjudicating the appeal. No legal infirmity can, therefore, be attributed to the impugned direction. 12. The submission founded on the demise of the petitioner’s mother also merits rejection. The said circumstance can appropriately be placed before the experts while conducting the evaluation and may likewise be considered by the learned Appellate Court while appreciating the evidentiary value of the report. By itself, however, it does not constitute a ground to interdict the evaluation directed by the learned Appellate Court. 13. This Court, therefore, finds no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference under Section 528 BNSS. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 20, 2026/prg/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:03:24