Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 20 (CAL)

DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-01-13

PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA

body2006
Pravendu Narayan Sinha ( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the Learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short ACMM), Calcutta in connection with Section C (DD) Case No. 125 of 2003 under Section 373/34 of Indian penal Code (hereinafter Called I. P. C.) and for directing the Sanlaap, the opposite Party No. 2 to produce the juvenile Juhi Singh for handing over to her mother Simla Singh, Opposite Party No. 3 and to produce before Child Welfare committee in view of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called the Act ). In connection with the present revisional application the petitioner has also filed two separate applications, one being C. R. A. N. No. 745 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation delay of 615 days in filing the revisional application. By the other application being C. R. A. N. No. 746 of 2005 the petitioner has prayed for initiation of criminal proceeding under Sections 191 and 193 of the I. P. C. against Jayanta pal and Sibsankar Guha, the officers of Immoral of Traffic Section, Detective department, Lalbazar, Calcutta. I intend to dispose of the revisional application and the other two applications by this common judgment and order, though before hearing the revisional application question of condonation of delay in filling the revisional application should have been taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) BEFORE entering into the merit of the revisional application, I intend to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner being C. R. A. N. No. 745 of 2005 for condonation of delay of 615 days in presenting the revisional application. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it has been stated that the impugned order challenging which the revisional application has been filed, was passed by the learned ACMM on 7th August, 2003 in Section C (DD) Case No. 125 of 2003. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is without dates as to when the petitioner obtained certified copy of the impugned order challenging which the revisional application has been filed and in the intervening period what steps were taken by the petitioner in presenting the revisional application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is without dates as to when the petitioner obtained certified copy of the impugned order challenging which the revisional application has been filed and in the intervening period what steps were taken by the petitioner in presenting the revisional application. In fact, no ground at all has been shown in the application explaining the delay which prevented the petitioner from preferring the revisional application in time. ( 3 ) THE six paragraphs of the application along with the prayer do not at all disclose any ground for condonation of delay. It is undisputed that the settled principle of law is that the Court should be liberal in the matter of condonation of delay but, that does not indicate that the Court will condone the delay where no ground or explanation for condoning delay has been mentioned and explained in the application. Nothing has been stated in the application as to what the petitioner was doing since 7th August, 2003 till he preferred the revisional application before this Court on 11th April, 2005. It is not desirable that every hour's or every second's delay to be explained but, the application must disclose grounds showing different dates for the delay which prevented the petitioner in filing the revisional application in time. The application is hopelessly disclosing no ground at all for condonation of delay and no ground at all which prevented him in preferring the revisional application in time. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground at all for condonation of delay of 615 days in preferring the revisional application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being C. R. A. N. No. 745 of 2005 being without any grounds showing explanation of delay accordingly has no merit at all and it is accordingly dismissed. For this ground alone the revisional application is not entertainable and is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) IN spite of the fact that the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act is not in proper form and is not showing any ground for condonation of delay and this Court has not condoned the delay, still I intend to dispose of the revisional application on merit. ( 4 ) IN spite of the fact that the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act is not in proper form and is not showing any ground for condonation of delay and this Court has not condoned the delay, still I intend to dispose of the revisional application on merit. ( 5 ) THE petitioner's case as disclosed in the revisional application is that the petitioner is doing research work on law and judicial system since 1989 and is also a legal correspondent of the 'hindustan Times'. On 4th July, 2003, the officer-in-charge and sub-inspector of Immoral Traffic Section of the detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta Police arrested Simla Singh (O. P. No. 3), Juhi Singh (the juvenile in question in this matter), Priti Singh and one ratan Mukherjee in connection with Section C (DD) case No. 125 of 2003 under section 373/34 of the I. P. C. All of them were produced after arrest before the learned ACMM Calcutta on 5th July, 2003 and the Ld. ACMM sent Priti Singh to S. M. M. Home, Liluah and remanded Simla Singh and Ratan Mukherjee to policy custody. Juhi Singh was ha'nded over to her father Samir Singh with direction to the police authorities to verify his true identity as father of Juhi and to submit a report to that effect within 10th July, 2003. On 7th August, 2003 sub-inspector filed a report before the learned ACMM and at that time an NGO namely Sanlaap, O. P. No. 2 herein filed an application for taking custody of juhi. Learned ACMM by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2003 handed over Juhi to the custody of Sanlaap, the O. P. No. 2. Simla Singh was released on bail by the order of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 8th August, 2003, priti Singh was released by learned ACMM on 21st August, 2003 when medical report revealed that she was above eighteen years but below twenty years in age. ( 6 ) SIMLA Singh filed an application before learned ACMM, Calcutta for custody of her daughter Juhi Singh but the learned Magistrate rejected her prayer on 19th February, 2004. Against the order of the learned ACMM rejecting her prayer Simla Singh filed a criminal motion before the City Sessions Court, calcutta which was also rejected on 12th July 2004. ( 6 ) SIMLA Singh filed an application before learned ACMM, Calcutta for custody of her daughter Juhi Singh but the learned Magistrate rejected her prayer on 19th February, 2004. Against the order of the learned ACMM rejecting her prayer Simla Singh filed a criminal motion before the City Sessions Court, calcutta which was also rejected on 12th July 2004. Thereafter, Simla Singh, the O. P. No. 3, preferred a criminal revision before this Court being CRR No. 2479 of 2004 but, this Court also by order dated 14th October, 2004 rejected her prayer and dismissed the revisional application. Thereafter, Simla Singh filed SLP (Crl) No. 5175 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the slp was rejected on January 17th, 2005. Thereafter, one habeas corpus writ petition has been filed before this Court for restoration of Juhi Singh to her mother but the said habeas corpus petition is still pending. ( 7 ) UNDER these background of facts the petitioner filed the revisional application and raised the question "whether the learned ACMM, Calcutta had the jurisdiction to deal with a juvenile girl and remand her to the custody of a ngo by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2003". ( 8 ) MR. Prahaldka the petitioner himself appearing in person submitted that in view of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short code)any interested person has the power to file any application before High Court and being so, he as locus standi to file the application when prima facie the order of the learned ACMM is bad in law. He contended that even a stranger or third party, if aggrieved by order of Magistrate or subordinate Court can file revisional application. Learned ACMM had no power to deal with custody, protection etc. , in respect of a juvenile. The impugned order passed by the learned ACMM handing over custody of juvenile Juhi Singh aged about, ten (10) years to a NGO viz, Sanlaap is bad in law. This Court under the exercise of its supervising power and revisional power can interfere into illegality of any order passed by any subordinate Court. According to the Act only the Child welfare Committee (in short CWC) as the power to look after welfare of juvenile. This Court under the exercise of its supervising power and revisional power can interfere into illegality of any order passed by any subordinate Court. According to the Act only the Child welfare Committee (in short CWC) as the power to look after welfare of juvenile. Accordingly, the juvenile should be directed to be produced before the CWC so that they can decide regarding welfare of the juvenile as well as her custody. ( 9 ) MR. Prahladka further submitted that under Section 29 (5) of the act, the CWC set up by the State Government shall function as a Bench of first Class- Magistrates to deal with the juveniles who are below the age of eighteen years. Under Section 31 of the Act the committee shall have the final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the juveniles and to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights. Under Section 32 of the Act any child in need care and protection may be produced before the committee by any police officer, public servant, registered NGO, or by a social worker or by the child himself/herself. Under Section 33 of the Act the committee may order enquiry to be completed within four months and send the juvenile to the children's home. After enquiry, if the committee is of opinion that the juvenile has no family it may allow that juvenile to remain in the children's home till suitable rehabilitation is found for him/her or till he/she attains the age of eighteen years. ( 10 ) MR. Prahladka submitted that it is thus obvious that only the CWC had the jurisdiction and not the learned Magistrate to direct custody of the juvenile Juhi. The order passed by the learned ACMM dated 7th August, 2003 was, therefore, without jurisdiction and it should be set aside. The officers of the Immoral Traffic Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta, has formed a racket in collusion with Sanlaap to take custody of minor girls by adopting sophisticated method. They illegally produce the minors before the learned Magistrates and thereafter describe their mothers as prostitutes and fabricate false evidence to mislead the Court to believe that the said mothers keep the minor girls for the purpose of prostitution. They illegally produce the minors before the learned Magistrates and thereafter describe their mothers as prostitutes and fabricate false evidence to mislead the Court to believe that the said mothers keep the minor girls for the purpose of prostitution. The O. P. No. 2 in their affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in connection with SLP (Crl) No. 5175 of 2004 made false statement by saying that Juhi Singh was produced before cwc set up under the Act as she was a child. But in the affidavit-in-opposition filed before this Court the Sanlaap has made a different statement stating that there was no CWC sitting on 7th August, 2003 when the learned ACMM passed the order. This Court, therefore, should set aside the order of the learned ACMM and should direct the learned Magistrate and the police authorities as well as o. P. No. 2 namely, Sanlaap to produce the juvenile Juhi Singh before the CWC forthwith for necessary orders under the provisions of the Act. In support of his contention Mr. Prahladka referred to the decision in Salim Ikramuddim v. Officer-in-charge, borivali Police Station reported in Cr. LJ 799, Mohd Zahid v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1998) 5 SCC 419 : 1998 C Cr LR (SC) 235 and ramchandra v. Sankaramma reported in 1956 SCA636. ( 11 ) MR. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for O. P. No. 2 namely Sanlaap submitted that the Immoral Traffic Section of Detective department, Lalbazar on 4th July recovered Juhi Singh and Priti Singh from the clutches of Simla Singh and Ratan Mukherjee for allegedly using the aforesaid juveniles for prostitution and accordingly they started a case being section C (DD) Case No. 125 of 2003 and produced them before the learned accm on 5th July 2003. On 7th August, 2003 Sanlaap filed an application for custody of the juvenile Juhi Singh and the learned Magistrate passed the order granting custody of the juvenile Juhi to Sanlaap on execution of a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs. Accused Simla Singh who claimed herself as mother of Juhi was released on bail by the order of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 8th August, 2003. Priti Singh was released by learned Magistrate as her medical report revealed that she had exceeded age of eighteen years. ( 12 ) MR. 5 lakhs. Accused Simla Singh who claimed herself as mother of Juhi was released on bail by the order of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 8th August, 2003. Priti Singh was released by learned Magistrate as her medical report revealed that she had exceeded age of eighteen years. ( 12 ) MR. Sengupta contended that thereafter Simla Singh filed an application before the learned ACCM praying for custody of the juvenile Juhi singh. The learned Magistrate after going through the report found that his father as alleged Samir Singh, is not at all married husband of Simla Singh and Samir Singh is, in fact, a Muslim whose real name is Md. Sakil and he was legally married with one Razia Begam. From the enquiry made by police it was further revealed that the said Md. Sakil was a paramour of Simla Singh. The learned Magistrate found from the police papers that both Priti Singh and Juhi singh were kept for the purpose of prostitution in the house in question from where they were recovered, that is, 8b, Abinash Kabiraj Street, Calcutta. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire facts and circumstances and for the welfare of the juvenile child Juhi Singh kept her in custody of Sanlaap by order dated 7th August, 2003. The said order of the learned Magistrate giving custody of juvenile Juhi to Sanlaap was affirmed even in the Hon'ble supreme Court and the revisional applications filed by Simla Singh, O. P. No. 3 challenging the said order were rejected by the City Sessions Court, Calcutta and by this Court in CRR No. 2479 of 2004. ( 13 ) MR. Sengupta also contended that where the matter reached up to the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to custody of the juvenile Juhi Singh and became final, the petitioner being an outsider has no locus standi at all to file the present revisional application. Besides that, one habeas corpus petition is also pending before this Court. Sanlaap is not against production of the juvenile before CWC and there wi|l be no objection from Sanlaap, if the juvenile Juhi is produced before CWC for necessary orders. The prime consideration would be welfare of the juvenile and whether, if she is released to any other person whether there would be possibility of engaging her for the purpose of prostitution. ( 14 ) MR. The prime consideration would be welfare of the juvenile and whether, if she is released to any other person whether there would be possibility of engaging her for the purpose of prostitution. ( 14 ) MR. Sengupta further submitted that in criminal matters generally principles of res judicata are seldom applied which are generally applied in civil matters but, principles of res judicata can also be applied in appropriate criminal cases. In support of his contention Mr. Sengupta placed two decisions before me namely Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1972 SC 1502 and the Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of Trustees of the cochin Port Trust and Anr. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1283 . Mr. Sengupta submitted that these decisions would indicate that the principles of res judicata is also applicable to criminal proceedings. Apart from codified law doctrine of res judicata on the principles of res judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by Courts in England, India and other countries. Therefore, in the present matter the question of custody to mother as prayed for by the petitioner is hit by principles of res judicata. Besides that, the petitioner being an outsider has no locus standi to file the revisional application. The revisional application having no merit requires to be dismissed. ( 15 ) MR. Y. J. Dastoor learned Advocate appearing for O. P. No. 3 submitted that his client is the mother of juvenile Juhi Singh. The order of the learned ACMM giving custody of juvenile to Sanlaap was bad in law and against the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the said order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the learned ACMM should be set aside and the custody of the juvenile should be restored to her mother. ( 16 ) MR. Swapan Kumar Mallick learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the revisional application is barred by limitation. The petitioner is an outsider and is a stranger and is not at all related to the juvenile Juhi singh. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revisional application. When the order of the learned ACMM giving custody of the juvenile to Sanlaap was affirmed even in the Hon'ble Supreme Court there is no merit in the revisional application and the same should be dismissed. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revisional application. When the order of the learned ACMM giving custody of the juvenile to Sanlaap was affirmed even in the Hon'ble Supreme Court there is no merit in the revisional application and the same should be dismissed. ( 17 ) AFTER duly considering the submissions of the petitioner and the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the materials on record I find that the following facts are admitted :" (i) On 4th July, 2003 the officer-in-charge and sub-inspector of Immoral traffic Section of the Detective Department, Calcutta police arrested Simla singh, the juvenile Juhi Singh, Priti Singh and one Ratan Mukherjee and started burtala P. S. Case No. 125 dated 4th July, 2003 under Section 373/34 of the i. P. C. on the allegation that Simla Singh and Ratan Mukherjee in furtherance of their common intention engaged the juveniles Priti Singh and Juhi Singh both of 8b, Abinas Kabiraj Street, Calcutta-6 for the purpose of prostitution against their will. (ii) The said persons were produced before the learned ACMM Calcutta on 5th July, 2003 and the learned Magistrate sent the accused Simla Singh and ratan Mukherjee to police custody and the juvenile Priti Singh to SMM Home at Liluah. The other juvenile Juhi Singh was handed over to her alleged father samir Singh and a direction was given to the police officer to verify true identity of the said father of Juhi Singh. (iii) In terms of such direction the police officer made enquiry and during enquiry it was revealed that Samir Singh is a fake name and his real name is md. Sakil and Simla Singh is not the wife of Md. Sakil. Enquiry revealed that one Rajia Begam is the legal married wife of Md. Sakil and Md. Sakil is none but paramour of Simla Singh. (iv) After receiving such report, the learned ACMM by order dated 7th August, 2003 handed over custody of the juvenile Juhi Singh to the NGO viz. , Sanlaap on execution of bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with undertaking to produce the girl in court as and when ordered. There was further direction by the learned magistrate that Sanlaap will submit quarterly reports to the Court in respect of juhi Singh. , Sanlaap on execution of bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with undertaking to produce the girl in court as and when ordered. There was further direction by the learned magistrate that Sanlaap will submit quarterly reports to the Court in respect of juhi Singh. (v) On 26th July, 2003 Ratan Mukherjee was granted bail by the Learned chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and accused Simla Singh was released on bail on 8th August, 2003. Priti Singh, the other alleged juvenile was released from SM. M Home, Liluah on 21st August, 2003 when medical examination report indicated that she has completed age of eighteen years. (vi) Simla Singh mother of Juhi Singh filed an application before the learned magistrate for releasing Juhi Singh from Sanlaap and for handing Juhi Singh to her custody. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of Simla Singh by order dated 19th February, 2004 passed in G. R. Case No. 882 of 2003 which arise out of aforesaid Burtala P. S. Case. Challenging the order of the learned acmm Simla Singh filed a revisional application before the learned Chief Judge, city Sessions Court, Calcutta but, the learned Judge 8th Bench, City Sessions court by order dated 12th July, 2004 passed in criminal revision No. 36 of 2004 dismissed the revisional application and affirmed the order of the learned acmm. (vii) Simla Singh thereafter, filed a revisional application before this Court being CKR No. 2479 of 2004 challenging the order of the learned Judge, City sessions Court rejecting her prayer and dismissing the criminal revision. This court by order dated 14th October, 2004 dismissed the revisional application filed by Simla Singh. This Court of course, at the time of disposing of the said revisional application directed Sanlaap to take appropriate steps for education and other facilities for Juhi Singh and also granted liberty to Simla Singh to meet her daughter Juhi Singh at Sanlaap. (viii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of this Court dated 14th October, 2004 Simla Singh filed SLP (Crl) No. 5175 of 2004 in the Hon'ble supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme of India by order dated 17th january, 2005 dismissed the SLP. At the time of dismissing the SLP the Hon'ble supreme Court observed that it would be open to the petitioner Simla Singh to approach the High Court in case the child is not given proper education. The Hon'ble Supreme of India by order dated 17th january, 2005 dismissed the SLP. At the time of dismissing the SLP the Hon'ble supreme Court observed that it would be open to the petitioner Simla Singh to approach the High Court in case the child is not given proper education. " ( 18 ) THE whole gamut of the case and the facts that have transpired clearly reveal that so far as it related to custody of Juhi Singh, the matter has been set at rest finally by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. During enquiry it was revealed that Samir Singh is not at all father of Juhi Singh and, in fact, he is not a Hindu but a Muslim Md. Sakil by name. Question of giving custody of Juhi singh to Md. Sakil alias Samir Singh does not arise. The attempt of Simla Singh to have custody of Juhi Singh finally ended with the order of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India when the SLP was dismissed and prayer of simla Singh was turned down. This Court cannot go beyond the order of the hon'ble Supreme Court and cannot pass direction for handing over custody of juhi Singh to the O. P. No. 3 Simla Singh. ( 19 ) THE petitioner Mr. Dipak Kumar Prahladka is not at all related to juhi Singh. He has no locus standi to file the instant revisional application. The petitioner is neither the father or uncle or brother or guardian of Juhi Singh. Section 401 of Code cannot be interpreted in the manner as to allow any Ram, shyam, Jadu or Tom, Dick and Harry to file a revisional application before the high Court seeking interference against order of subordinate Court, particularly when the order of the subordinate Court was affirmed even before the Hon'ble supreme Court of India. It was not the intention of the legislature, that is, parliament to allow any body under the heading "or other person" as embodied in Section 401 of the Code to prefer revisional application. It was not the intention of the legislature, that is, parliament to allow any body under the heading "or other person" as embodied in Section 401 of the Code to prefer revisional application. If this Court allow such an application it would open flood gate to allow any Ram, Shyam Jadu or tom, Dick and Harry to file revisional applications in High Court against any order of subordinate Court in which some interested persons would engage a third party to come under the heading "other person" to file the revisional applications. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Prahladka that Section 401 of the code empowers him to file the present revisional application. This is not the law nor legal principle nor intention of Parliament and anyone who is not affected at all in the matter cannot see intervention of the High Court under section 401 of the Code. The petitioner has no right to file the present revisional application and he has no locus standi to file the present application. The revisional application is also liable to be dismissed on this score also. ( 20 ) AS directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter of concern would be whether Sanlaap has taken steps for proper education of the juvenile juhi Singh and I expect, that the learned Magistrate would look into this matter when he would receive quarterly reports. He should enquire as to what steps have been taken by Sanlaap for the education of Juhi Singh. ( 21 ) COMING to the question relating to non-compliance with provision of the Act it is clear that it was not pointed out before the learned Magistrate about relevant provisions of the Act. ( 22 ) UNDER Section 2 (K) of the Act 'juvenile' or 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. ( 23 ) UNDER Section 29 (5) of the Act the Child Welfare Committee (CWC)set up by the State Government shall functions as a Bench of Magistrates and shall have the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on a metropolitan Magistrate or as the case may be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. ( 23 ) UNDER Section 29 (5) of the Act the Child Welfare Committee (CWC)set up by the State Government shall functions as a Bench of Magistrates and shall have the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on a metropolitan Magistrate or as the case may be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. ( 24 ) UNDER Section 31 of the Act the Committee shall have the final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights. ( 25 ) SECTION 32 of the Act prescribes that any child in need of care and protection may be produced before the committee by any police officer, by any public servant or by childline, or a registered voluntary organisation recognised by the State Government or by any social worker or a public spirited citizen authorised by Government or by the child himself. ( 26 ) SECTION 33 of the Act prescribes that the committee may order enquiry to be completed within four months and may send the juvenile to children's Home. If after enquiry the committee is of the opinion that the child has no family or ostensible support, it may allow the child to remain in children's home or shelter home till suitable rehabilitation is found for him or till he attains the age of eighteen years. ( 27 ) IT is true that the provisions of the Act were not brought to the notice as of the learned ACMM. In spite of that the order of the learned ACMM handing over custody of child or juvenile Juhi singh to Sanlaap would not be regarded invalid or illegal when the matter reached culmination relating to custody in the hon'ble Supreme Court. It is evident from the affidavit-in-opposition of opposite party No. 2 that as per the action plan of Government of India to combat trafficking of women and Children State Advisory Committee has been formed, where Sanlaap is one of the members in the capacity of NGO. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Department of Women and Child Development approved activities of Sanlaap in the project to combat the trafficking of children for commercial, sexual exploitation. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Department of Women and Child Development approved activities of Sanlaap in the project to combat the trafficking of children for commercial, sexual exploitation. ( 28 ) IN view of the above position and the facts mentioned above the question of taking away the juvenile Juhi Sing from custody of Sanlaap for the present does not arise. Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel rightly pointed out that principle of res judicata is applicable at least in respect of certain matters in criminal cases and the decisions cited by him are pertinent and apposite in this case. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Hon'ble supreme clearly observed that, "the principles of res judicata is also applicable to criminal proceedings". In the Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of trustees of the Cochin Port Trust (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme court that, "it is well known that the doctrine of res judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is not exhaustive. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the codified law the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of res judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by Courts in England, india and other countries". The aforesaid principle of law laid down by the supreme Court clearly indicates that principle of res judicata can also be applied in criminal matters and in the present case principle of res judicata applies and question of custody of Juhi Singh cannot be reopened by this Court. ( 29 ) IF it is found that certain provisions of the Act were not complied with and the juvenile Juhi Singh was not produced before the CWC in view of section 32 of the Act, and the learned Magistrate was not empowered to deal with juvenile, that may be rectified by the learned Magistrate being curable irregularity by giving direction for production of the Juhi Singh before the CWC for passing necessary orders for compliance of provisions of the Act but to consider welfare of the child and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The learned Magistrate must caution the CWC the background of the case and the danger of engaging Juhi Singh into flesh trade or prostitution in the famous red light area of North Calcutta from where she was recovered by Immoral Traffic Section of Detective Department, Calcutta Police and also caution or intimate the CWC that Simla Singh herself is an accused under section 373 of the I. P. C. The CWC must be apprised of the entire matter and facts and the order of this Court passed in C. R. R. No. 2479 of 2004 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) 5175 of 2004. When the government is seriously considering for combating trafficking of children and women for sexual exploitation, the CWC must be cautious of the matter and must consider whether the child Juhi Singh is safe under the custody of Sanlaap and whether Sanlaap has taken proper steps for her welfare and education and other daily needs. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court the learned ACMM would be at liberty to pass necessary direction for production of the child before the CWC for necessary order, if it is established that the said child Juhi Singh was not at all produced before the CWC. If it is established that the said child was produced before the CWC and necessary order was passed by the CWC question of sending Juhi Singh afresh before the CWC does not arise. The learned Magistrate shall also intimate the CWC that prayer of Simla Singh for custody of Juhi Singh became final after order of the Hon'ble supreme Court and the said chapter cannot be reopened by CWC. ( 30 ) IN view of the discussion made above this Court finds no merit in the revisional application and it is accordingly dismissed and disposed of in the light of the observations made above. ( 31 ) IN view of the dismissal of the revisional application this Court finds no merit at all in the application being CRA No. 746 of 2005 filed by the applicant dipak Kumar Prahladka. ( 31 ) IN view of the dismissal of the revisional application this Court finds no merit at all in the application being CRA No. 746 of 2005 filed by the applicant dipak Kumar Prahladka. The police officers against whom the petitioner wanted to initiate criminal proceeding under Sections 191 and 193 of the I. P. C. did not prima facie commit any offence and being public servants in order to discharge their official duties they recovered two minor girls from the areas which is used for prostitution and tried to save the two minor girls from being used for prostitution. That being the position, this Court finds no prima facie material in the application filed by the petitioner for initiation of proceeding against the police officer under Sections 191 and 193 of the I. P. C. This petition is also not entertainable and accordingly fails and is dismissed. ( 32 ) CRIMINAL Section directed to send a copy of this order to the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for information and necessary action. .