Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Deepak Kumar Prahladka vs Unknown on 2 April, 2013
Author: Toufique Uddin
Bench: Toufique Uddin
1
013
11
C. R. R. 3559 of 2013
In the matter of Deepak Kumar Prahladka
.. petitioner-in-person
Mr. Deepak Kumar Prahladka
Petitioner-in-person
This is an application under Section 340(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in the matter of commission of offence under
Sections 211 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.
39 of 2011under Section 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code pending
before the learned 9th Fast Track Court, City Sessions Court at
Calcutta.
The applicant is doing the research work in law and judicial
system and campaigning for protection of fundamental rights of the
persons in judicial custody. He is also campaigning against the
fraudulent practices of the policemen fabricating false evidence and
filing false case against the innocent persons to make wrongful gain
or cause wrongful losses to others.
2
The applicant discovered a racket formed by the police officials
of (IT) Detective Department, Kolkata Police who forcibly took away
minor or adult girls and obtained their signatures or thumb
impression on false fabricated statement and by showing them as
child victim girls started false case against their parent and other and
that too without jurisdiction. The said police officer also acted in
collusion with NGO named "Sanlaap" which illegally obtained
custody of the child girls under the orders of the learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, without jurisdiction, for
wrongful gain in the guise of their care and protection. The policemen
also extorted huge amount of money from the illeterate women by
falsely accusing them of purchasing the minor girls and obtained
statements of the alleged children under threat of serious
consequences.
The applicant herein filed application before the Hon'ble Court
for production of alleged child before the Child Welfare Committee for
dealing with them in accordance with law and for their release and
restoration to their family.
Subsequently, the applicant also filed a Public Interest Litigation
petition before the Hon'ble Court for direction upon the State of West
3
Bengal for constitution of Juvenile Justice Board and Child Welfare
Committee in every district.
One Shyama Devi Sisodia is the owner of premises No. 94,
Durga Charan Mitra Street, Kolkata -6 and has been living there with
their sons, daughters including Lachmi Sisodia and grandchildren
including Manisha and Kajal Sisodia.
Maina Singh was a tenant of the said premises and living with
her daughter Neelam Singh.
On 28th December, 2009 Kajal Sisodia a granddaughter of the
said Shyama Devi Sisodia along with her mother came to Kolkata
from Madhya Pradesh and living at the said premises.
On 29th December, 2009, Debasree Chatterjee, the then Officer-
in-Charge, IT, DD, Kolkata Police along with Ranjit Kumar
Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector , IT, DD Dilip Kumar Ghosal, Sub-
Inspector, IT,DD and other personnel of IT, DD went to the said
premises without registering any case and took away Shyama Devi
Sisodia's daughter Lachmi Thakur and her daughter Manisha , her
tenant Maina Singh and her daughter Neelam Singh and the said
Kajal Sisodia.
4
Ranjit Kumar Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector, IT,DD, prepared a
complaint on 29.12.2009 addressed to the then Deputy
Commissioner of Police, (DC),(DD), Kolkata Police and obtained her
endorsement on it. Dilip Kumar Ghosal, Sub-Inspector, IT,DD, then
started a case being Section C(DD) No. 462 of 2009 under Sections
372/373/34of the Indian Penal Code at Burtolla Police Station. The said Police Officials produced the said Lachmi Thakur and Maina Singh as accused persons before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who send them to police custody.
The said police officials also produced the said Manisha, Kajal and Neelam as minor victim girls before the Child Welfare Committee at Calcutta which remanded them to Sukanya Children's Home.
Since the alleged victim girls Manisha and Neelam were found to be above 18 years on 2nd February, 201, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta ordered their release on their personal bonds of Rs. 1,000/- each. On 2nd February, 2010 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta granted bail to the said Lachmi Thakur and Maina Singh.
On 4th March, 2010, the C.W.C. at Calcutta restored the minor victim girl Kajal Sisodia to her mother Savita Sisodia. 5
On 21st December, 2010, the said Dilip Kumar Ghosh filed a final report before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta discharging Lachmi Thakur and Maina Singh but charging the said Shyama Devi Sisodia under Sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Court by describing Kajal Sisodia as a 16 years old victim girl and obtained an order of warrant of arrest of the said Shyama Devi Sisodia by describing her as absconder, despite the fact that she had been living at the said premises with her said granddaughter, Kajal Sisodia, and other family members.
On 17th March, 2011, the said Shyama Debi Sisodia was arrested and produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 18th March, 2011, when she was sent to jail. Subsequently, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta committed the said Case to the learned City Sessions Court at Calcutta, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2011.
On 23rd May, 2011, the learned trial court framed charges under Sections 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code against the said Shyama Debi Sisodia and fixed 13th June, 2011 for evidence. 6
The minor victim girl, Kajal Sisodia is Shyama Devi /Sisodia's granddaughter and they had been living together. Moreover, it is clear from Kajal's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded on 1st February, 2010 that no case was made out under Section 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge had been framed in the said case under Sections 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code. If a prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of a female under the age of eighteen years shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. There is nothing on record to say that Shyama Devi Sisodia had sold or otherwise disposed of the said Kajal Sisodia to any one.
The applicant stated the details of commission of offence in the judicial proceedings before the learned 9th Fast Track Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.
Dilip Kumar Ghoshal, SI,IT,DD, filed charge sheet falsely against the said Shyama Devi Sisodia and induced the learned trial court to frame charges under Sections 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code 7 against her, knowing that there is no just and lawful ground for such charges against Shyama Devi Sisodia.
Charge sheet in the said criminal proceedings being Section "C"(DD) No. 464 of 2009, was based on false charge as there was no material to show the commission of offence under Section 372/373 of the Indian Penal Code by the said Shyama Devi Sishodia or there is no evidence to show that she has sold, let to hire or otherwise disposed of the said Kajal Sisodia to any one.
The petitioner-in-person in support of his contention cited before me some decisions as reported in 1995(1)SCC421,AIR1995 SC 1795, AIR 1936, Lahore 330 , (1998) 5 SCC 419 and in CRLA 332 of 1998 (Nachhattar Singh and others -vs- State of Punjab). The petitioner-in-person contended that the court may make a preliminary enquiry into the commission of offence as stated above and there mere a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and taking cognizance of commission of offences under Sections 211/109 of the Indian Penal in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2010 under Sections 373/373 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned 9th Fast Track Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.
8
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows :
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.- (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that if expedient in the interests of justice that an injury should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court, such court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;'
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
I have heard the petitioner-in-person and carefully examined the materials annexed to the petition. First of all I like to mention that the complaint hurled by the present petitioner against the continuance of the criminal case is having a mixture of a question of fact and law, which requires to be decided by competent court of law through trial. Moreover, the matter of investigation falls within the jurisdiction of investigating agency i.e., police authority. The 9 Investigating Officers do not appear to have mala fide action or animosity apparently against the concerned accused in the criminal case in the court below. Above all, if there is any infringement of right, the petitioner may resort to appropriate forum in due course of time. It is a premature stage.
From the facts and circumstances of the case as projected by the petitioner -in-person, I do not think it expedient in the interest of justice to cause further enquiry into the matter in this form.
At this stage, accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
( Toufique Uddin , J)