Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arshed Molla vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 March, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
10.03.2017
619.
as
W.P.1673 (W) of 2017
With
W.P.29336 (W) of 2016
Arshed Molla
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subhro Prakash Lahiri,
Sk. Nizamuddin,
Ms. Barnali Gupta.
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharyya
...for the State in
W.P.29336 (W) 2016.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sarder.
...for the private respondents.
The writ petition has been filed by one Arshed Molla, father of Abu Siddik Molla, claiming that his son was a minor and had been kidnapped by the private respondents herein and had been illegally given in marriage to respondent no.6.
Complaints have been made to the police authorities over this matter but no steps have been taken against the private respondents nor has the minor been recovered as yet.
Over this issue, petitioner had filed an earlier petition being W.P.29336 (W) of 2016, inter alia, praying for consideration of his representation dated 23.11.2016 seeking cancellation of the marriage between his son and the private respondent no.6.
2
In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for direction upon the investigating agency to register criminal case against the private respondents.
Reports have been filed on behalf of the State respondents in both the proceedings. From the said reports it appears that on the complaints of the petitioner criminal cases being Sundarban Coastal P.S. Case No.167 of 2016 dated 16.12.2016 under Sections 341/342/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sundarban Coastal P.S. Case No.3 of 2017 dated 2.1.2017 under Sections 363/120B of the Indian Penal Code and 84 J. J. (Care & Protection) of Children Act, 2015 have been registered against the private respondents.
On the other hand, on the complaint of the private respondent no.5, criminal case being Sundarban Coastal P.S. Case No.164 of 2016 dated 7.12.2016 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the D. P. Act has been registered against the petitioner and his son Abu Siddik Molla and others.
Investigation is continuing in both the cases. From the report dated 27.1.2017 filed in W.P.1673 (W) of 2017 it is stated that in view of the voters' list, the son of the petitioner appears to be a major.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that such contention is incorrect and relies on a purported birth certificate issued in favour of his son which shows that he was a minor at the time of incident.
On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents seeks to rely on certain documents to demonstrate that the said person was a major at the time of incident.
3
It is of utmost importance that investigations in both the cases are conducted in a prompt manner and the investigating agency looks into the authenticity of the documents relied upon by both the parties to come to a finding as to whether Abu Siddik Molla was a minor or not at the time of incident of his marriage. That apart, steps must be taken to trace out Abu Siddik Molla, the son of the petitioner in the interest of investigation in the aforesaid cases.
It is open to the investigating agency to interrogate the petitioner as well as the private respondents and take all necessary steps available in law to trace out the whereabouts and recover the said Abu Siddik Molla.
Petitioner as well as the private respondents shall submit all documents in their possession with regard to the age of Abu Siddik Molla to the investigating agency who shall investigate the genuineness of such documents and also conduct independent investigation with regard to the age of the son of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Progress report with regard to the progress of investigation of the aforesaid cases particularly with regard to the aforesaid facts be submitted before this Court on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear under the same heading eight weeks hence.
( Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 4