Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 57 (CAL)

Gita Debnath v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-02-04

ARUNABHA BASU

body2009
Judgment : ARUNABHA BASU, J. (1) The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceedings in connection with GR Case No. 119 of 2006, arising out of East Bidhannagar Police Case No. 25 dated 10.3.2006 under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), now pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. (2) Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused to connection with the abovenoted case wherein the police officer conducting investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner along with others. (3) The short question that arises so far as the present revisional application in concerned in whether the case against the petitioner is liable to be quashed as not maintainable. (4) In this charge-sheet is submitted against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 3,4,5,7 of the Act. Offence under Section 3 of the Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Offence under Section 4 of the Act deals with punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Offence under Section 5 of the Act deals with proeuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. Offence under Section 7 of the Act deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. (5) So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation against her can at best fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Act, which deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. The place of occurrence as indicated in the FIR lodged by one Kaberi Dutta relates to flat No. S1 at Block No. EE 22/7, Sector-II, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700091. (6) The allegation as disclosed in the FIR is mainly against one Jayanta Pal (non petitioner) and it is alleged that the said premise is being used for the purpose of prostitution. The place of occurrence is a public place. The allegation as to prostitution in a public place is covered under section 7 of the Act. (7) Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the prosecution against the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the judgment and; order passed by this Court in connection with CRR 1560 of 2006. The place of occurrence is a public place. The allegation as to prostitution in a public place is covered under section 7 of the Act. (7) Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the prosecution against the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the judgment and; order passed by this Court in connection with CRR 1560 of 2006. It is evident that two other charge-sheeted accused persons in connection with the aforesaid revisional application moved to this Court for quashing the proceeding. This Court by judgment and order dated 12.6.2008 directed quashing of the proceeding against petitioner Chanchal Sarkar, while the application for co-petitioner Jayanta Pal was rejected. (8) Being directed by this court, learned Advocate for the State produced case diary. The material indicates that the only allegation against the petitioner herein was that she was found present with Chanchal Sarkar. (9) Learned Advocate for the petitioner drew the attention of the observation of this court on perusal of the case diary, which is reproduced below: "Coming to the case of petitioner No. 1 it appears from the case diary materials that he was found present with one Gita Debnath, who is also charge-sheeted in this case. The case diary material does not prima facie shows that the said Gita Debnath is a prostitute. In this connection, the opinion of the learned public prosecutor is available and the case diary will show that the learned public prosecutor opined that said Gita Debnath should be cited as an witness and not as an accused". (10) Mere presence with another person without any other material does not indicate that the petitioner being a lady was engaged in prostitution. In the absence of any prima facie material, which the police could not gather even after conclusion of investigation, the further continuation of the case against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the Court. (11) The revisional application disposed of with the direction that the aforementioned proceeding now pending before the learned Court below stands quashed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. Criminal section is directed to supply urgent photostat copy of the order to the parties as and when applied for. Criminal section is also directed to send a copy of the order to the learned Court below. Case diary be returned. Petition allowed.