Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 333 (GAU)

Runa Paul v. State of Tripura

2009-05-16

UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2009
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner Smt. Runa Paul, wife of Shri Susanta Dey of Tezpur and daughter of Shri Krishna Chandra Paul of Najirani Bari, Jorhat, Assam for quashing the orders dated 9.5.2009 and 11.5.2009 passed by the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with West Agartala P.S. GD Entry No. 640 dated 8.5.2009 in connection with Tejpur P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009 under Section 366 of IPC whereby and whereunder she was sent to the custody of Rashtirya Mahila Ashram, Abhoynagar, Agartala against her will. 2. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Indu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. Considering the nature of the case and as agreed to by the learned Counsel of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage itself. 4. The petitioner was asserted on 8.5.2009 on the basis of a complaint lodged by her father that she has been abducted by one Shri Pritam Biswas, the accused of Tejpur P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009 under Section 366 , IPC and she was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala on 9.5.2009. While she was produced before the learned CJM then she was sent to the custody of Rashtriya Mahila Ashram, Abhoynagar by the learned CJM against her will though she was not wanted in any case as accused. Thereafter, by her application dated 10.5.2009 she approached the learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala to pass necessary orders to set out liberty to her being she is an adult and an income tax assessee having sound mind and also she has not been shown as an accused in the aforesaid Tejpur P.S. case. In the said application she further stated that she was feeling very much insecured in the Ashram and she wants to live with one Gita Chatterjee of Vidyasagar Chowmuhani, Jogendranagar, Agartala. But that was not allowed by the learned CJM and by the impugned order dated 11.5.2009, she was again sent back to the Ashram. In the said application she further stated that she was feeling very much insecured in the Ashram and she wants to live with one Gita Chatterjee of Vidyasagar Chowmuhani, Jogendranagar, Agartala. But that was not allowed by the learned CJM and by the impugned order dated 11.5.2009, she was again sent back to the Ashram. It is contended in the writ petition that the learned CJM passed the aforesaid orders dated 9.5.2009 and 11.5.2009 against the law of land as the petitioner is an adult one and according to her, the aforesaid orders of the learned CJM are nothing but illegal detention orders. Hence the writ petition. 5. Mr. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an adult and married woman as well as an income tax payee and she has the right to move anywhere in the country according to her choice subject to restrictions put by the provisions of law. He further submits that the petitioner is not the accused in any criminal case including the aforesaid Tezpur P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009, rather at best she can be a witness in the aforesaid case, but the observation of the learned CJM in his order dated 9.5.2009 inter alia, although the victim lady is an adult but she appears to be young and as such the Court to consider the safety and security of the lady is nothing but a presumption of the Court. He finally submits that Court cannot put any restriction to her movement in the name of her so called safety and security. But by putting restriction in her movement, the learned CJM in fact has curtailed her right provided under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, i.e. right to move freely throughout the territory of India and personal liberty. 6. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was never arrested by the State police in connection with the aforesaid Tezpur P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009 or the West Agartala P.S. GD Entry No. 640 dated 8.5.2009. But she being wanted by the Tezpur Police as per their requisition in view of the complaint lodged by her father, she was kept in the safe custody and thereafter, she was produced before the learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala for passing necessary orders. On her production, the learned CJM passed the impugned orders. But she being wanted by the Tezpur Police as per their requisition in view of the complaint lodged by her father, she was kept in the safe custody and thereafter, she was produced before the learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala for passing necessary orders. On her production, the learned CJM passed the impugned orders. Hence, there was no other option before the State authority except to send her to the Rashtriya Mahila Ashram, Abhoynagar, Agartala. He further submits that it appears from the record that the petitioner is an adult and married woman and also an income tax payee and she specifically stated before the learned CJM that she is not willing to go with her parents, rather she likes to stay with one Gita Chatterjee of Vidyasagar Chowmuhani, Jogendranagar, Agartala. 7. To be in safe side, this Court also asked the leaned Addl. P.P. to produce the petitioner before the Court so that she can be heard in person and accordingly, the learned Addl. P.P. produced the petitioner before the Court. 8. On query of the Court, the petitioner specifically stated that the left the house of her husband as she was subjected to torture there and also she is not willing to stay with her parents as they are prohibiting her from leading an independent life, but she wants to settle herself as a free citizen in the society. 9. In view of the submission of the learned Counsel of both sides and also the statement of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it was not proper on the part of the learned CJM to send the petitioner to the Rashtriya Mahila Ashram, Abhoynagar against her will as she is neither an accused in the aforesaid Tezpur P.S. Case nor a minor. There is no doubt that the Court should be cautious while releasing a victim lady like the present petitioner, but at the same time the Court is to keep in mind that the fundamental rights of a citizen cannot be disturbed in the name of so called safety and security of that citizen. Furthermore, an adult citizen has the right to take decision of his/her own regarding his/her own life including the place where he/she stay. Court cannot force any person to stay in a particular place because that will affect his/her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, an adult citizen has the right to take decision of his/her own regarding his/her own life including the place where he/she stay. Court cannot force any person to stay in a particular place because that will affect his/her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court holds that the impugned orders of the leaned CJM dated 9.5.2009 and 11.5.2009 respectively are bad in law so far the petitioner is concerned and hence quash the same. 11. The petitioner is at liberty to stay in any place according to her choice. The Superintendent of Rashtriya Mahila Ashram, Abhoynagar, Agartala is hereby directed to release the petitioner from the Ashram forthwith after obtaining her proposed address of stay from her so that the I/O. of Tezpur, P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009, if necessity so arises for the purpose of investigation of the aforesaid case, can locate and identify her. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that she will appear before the I/O. of the aforesaid Tezpur P.S. case as and when called for. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.