JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. Saswati Samaddar was a commercial clerk posted at Kolkata Railway Station. On February 25, 2010, she joined in the said post, after getting employment in the Railway. On April 30, 2010, she was on duty in Counter No. 4 in the Booking Office. One of her friends came to meet her. She was required to go to R.G. Kar Hospital, There was not many crowd at the counter. Saswati took leave from the booking counter and went out of the railway station along with her friend. They moved towards Gajnavi Bridge when her friend boarded an auto-rickshaw and went away. It was about half past five, Saswati noticed that a girl got down from a taxi and was proceeding to the bridge in nervous condition. The girl was wearing skimpy dress which attracted Saswati's attention. The girl did not have slippers on and her hair was unfastened. She was found to be terror stricken having her both hands folded on her chest. Saswati called her. The girl ignored the call and tried to proceed fast. Saswati called her again, then the girl asked her about the way to station. On inquiry she disclosed in Hindi that she wanted to go to Satna in Madhya Pradesh. Saswati informed her that no train used to go for Satna from the said station. At that moment, the girl with folded hands asked Saswati to save her and help her to go to Satna. Looking at the girl, Saswati was very much shocked particularly noticing her dress as quite obscure. She took her to the Railway Booking Counter and informed her colleagues. Her boss, Mr. Shome Chowdhury advised her to approach G.R.P. Office. By that time Saswati already became aware that the girl fled away from Sonagachhi, a Red Light area in Kolkata. The railway staff gave her a white shirt, black trousers being the booking office uniform. Saswati took her to bathroom so that she could change her dress. After the girl put on the uniform, Saswati took her to G.R.P. Office. The G.R.P. informed her that it was within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police. Saswati rang up Immoral Traffic Department, Lalbazar and informed about the incident. At about 6.45 p.m. two officers in plainclothes along with a lady officer came and questioned the girl. The girl was feeling very nervous. She finally narrated everything in detail. The G.R.P. informed her that it was within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police. Saswati rang up Immoral Traffic Department, Lalbazar and informed about the incident. At about 6.45 p.m. two officers in plainclothes along with a lady officer came and questioned the girl. The girl was feeling very nervous. She finally narrated everything in detail. The police got a rescue memo prepared which was signed by the railway staff including Saswati. The girl was named as Priti Banshal, respondent No. 9 herein. The I.T. officers lodged a complaint at Ultadanga Police Station having jurisdiction over the Gajnavi Bridge area. The police produced the girl before the Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata on the next day. The Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata interrogated the girl and recorded her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. THE statement of the girl so made before the police as well as Child Welfare Committee reveals as under:- Priti was a resident of Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In or about February, 2010 she went to get vegetables from the house of Lata Singh being three/four houses away from her house. She did not know what Lata Singh had done to her. Facts remain, she got fainted. When she recovered from her sense she found herself in a car in the company of Lata and a male person whom she did not know. After spending two days and two nights in the car they took her to the hotel at Kalighat at Calcutta. After that Asha Singh and Nitu Singh went to the Kolkata hotel along with Tarun Singh and Amar Singh. They purchased her. Asha Singh and Nitu Singh took her to Sangambari at Sonagachi. Tarun Singh and his father used to beat her up. Asha and Nitu told her that they had bought her for two lac rupees and as such she should not try to escape from there. They also used to beat her badly. She was often kept under lock and key so that she could not escape. On April 30, 2010 at about 5.30 p.m. she somehow escaped and caught a taxi and went to Kolkata Railway Station. She was dropped far away from the station. She started crying when a lady rail employee took her to her office and informed the police station who rescued her. On April 30, 2010 at about 5.30 p.m. she somehow escaped and caught a taxi and went to Kolkata Railway Station. She was dropped far away from the station. She started crying when a lady rail employee took her to her office and informed the police station who rescued her. She should be sent to her parents as soon as possible. She was temporally kept in the custody of the All Bengal Women's Union wherefrom she was transferred to "Sanlaap" at Narendrapore for her future rehabilitation in terms of an order passed by (CWC) dated June 24, 2010. THE police caused the investigation. THE police team went to Madhya Pradesh as would appear from the report of Sadhan Ghosh the respondent No. 2 above named dated September 2, 2010. The report of Mr. Ghosh reveals as under :- On August 26, 2010 the police team went to Satna and Raya at Madhya Pradesh. They went to Neheru Basti along with a constable of Kotwali Police Station. They went to the house of Lalman Banshal, the father of Priti. Lalman was staying with his son Bikash. Lalman was a alcoholic, he used to sell country liquor and assist his brother Chandan in the matter of cutting and selling of pork. He had four daughters and three sons. His wife maintained herself by doing daily labour. The local people could not give any particulars of the whereabouts of the girls or the wife of Lalman. Lalman stated, his wife Gita was at Satna along with youngest son and daughter Pinky. At the end of the investigation they found that out of four daughters of Lalman, one was married and other three were not seen with their parents since sometime past. Nobody could give details of the daughters. There was no record in the police station. Previously Priti and Pinky used to work as domestic help. Gita earned her living by performing as causal labour in various places of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The sons of Lalman were also abandoned. They used to work as land labour. Lalman did not take any responsibility towards his family and abandoned his children. Prem Lata was found trafficking Priti. According to Mr. Ghosh, it was not safe for Priti to stay with her parents as she might fall victim and re-trafficked again to hush up evidence. 3. THE petitioner Mr. They used to work as land labour. Lalman did not take any responsibility towards his family and abandoned his children. Prem Lata was found trafficking Priti. According to Mr. Ghosh, it was not safe for Priti to stay with her parents as she might fall victim and re-trafficked again to hush up evidence. 3. THE petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Prahladka claimed to be a journalist. He filed a criminal revisional application being CRP 2934 of 2010 inter alia praying for quashing of the entire proceeding whereas in other case Nitu Singh an accused prayed for identical relief and in the alternative, transfer of the said case to an appropriate Court having in jurisdiction. 4. I have heard Mr. Prahladka appearing in person as well as Mr. Dastoor learned Counsel appearing for Nitu Singh in respect of the respective applications. I have also heard Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick learned Counsel for the state and the learned Counsel representing "Sanlaap". Mr. Dastoor contended as follows :- i) Kolkata Police Station was not within the jurisdiction of Ultadanga Police Station, hence the case was not maintainable. ii) The incident occurred at Satna, Kalighat and Sonagachi. Hence, either of the three places would be relevant for the purpose of initiation of the proceeding and not Ultadanga Police Station. iii) The Kolkata Police produced the girl before the Child Welfare Committee Kolkata. Hence, the learned Magistrate at Sealdah did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. iv) Under section 181(2) of the Criminal Civil* Procedure Code the Court having local jurisdiction at the place where the victim was kidnapped or abducted or sold or detained would have the jurisdiction to try the offence. Ultadanga Police Station did not fall under any such category. 5. MR. Prahladka adopted the submission made by MR. Dastoor. In addition he contended that the police officers in the personal interest for making illegal gain initiated several false cases. The present case was one of them. According to MR. Prahladka, the learned Judge could not have framed the charges when the age of the victim was itself under challenge. He referred to section 178 of the Criminal Civil* Procedure Code to say that Ultadanga Police Station could not have jurisdiction to initiate proceeding. 6. BOTH Mr. Dostoor as well as Mr. Prahladka however prayed in the alternative that the case should be transferred to any other Court at Kolkata. Mr. He referred to section 178 of the Criminal Civil* Procedure Code to say that Ultadanga Police Station could not have jurisdiction to initiate proceeding. 6. BOTH Mr. Dostoor as well as Mr. Prahladka however prayed in the alternative that the case should be transferred to any other Court at Kolkata. Mr. Dostoor added that the public prosecutor appointed in this case was ordinarily practicing in Bichar Bhawan Kolkata. The police officials from the I.T. department were stationed at Kolkata. Hence, the balance of convenience would be in favour of transferring the case from Sealdah to Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata. He also indicated the bias ness of the learned Judge. To support his allegations, he referred to an order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge Kolkata dated August 20, 2010 whereby the records were called for by the learned Judge at Kolkata at the instance of the mother of the victim who challenged the order of Child Welfare Committee dated July 20, 2010 refusing to part with the custody of the child to her. She contended before Child Welfare Committee that Priti was a major. Mr. Dostoor contended that almost eight months passed in between the records were not transmitted to City Sessions Court by the learned Judge at Sealdah. Opposing the applications, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick learned Counsel appearing for the prosecution contended that the application of Mr. Prahladka was not at all maintainable. He was neither an accused nor a complainant in the instant case. Being a rank outsider he was not entitled to challenge the said proceeding. Mr Mallick also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court wherein it was specifically ordered that Mr. Prahladka would not be entitled to initiate any proceeding in this Court on a common cause without express leave from this Court. His petition was thus not maintainable. 7. WITH regard to the submissions of Mr. Dostoor, Mr. Mallick contended that the petition was not maintainable, as the accused Nitu was not entitled to affirm the affidavit in view of the express bar in section 3 of the Oath Act. The other accused were not made party to the proceeding. The charges were already framed. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to raise factual issue that could only be considered at the time of trial. On the allegation of bias, Mr. The other accused were not made party to the proceeding. The charges were already framed. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to raise factual issue that could only be considered at the time of trial. On the allegation of bias, Mr. Mallick contended that submissions from the Bar without having any support from the pleading would be of no consequence and should not be given any credence. According to Mr. Mallick, the Revisional Court would not be competent to hold a mini trial considering the factual controversy that could only be resolved at the final stage of the trial. He referred to section 178(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code to say that when several acts were committed either of the places would be relevant and the Court having jurisdiction over the said place could take cognizance. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Purushottamdas Dalmia vs. State of West Bengal reported in All India Reporter 1961 Supreme Court 1589. According to him, it would not be wise for the Court to transfer the case to any other Court which would unnecessarily delay the process of trial as each and every Court being preoccupied with huge cases would find it difficult to accommodate a new one and ex pedite the trial. 8. MS. Melita Fernandes learned Counsel appearing for the Sanlaap contended that there must not be any delay in the process of trial. The charges were already framed, hence this Court should not transfer the same to any other Court. She referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, reported in 2002 Criminal Law Journal 1754 and unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in CRA No.121 of 2008 (Virender vs. The State of NCT of Delhi). While replying Mr. Dostoor contended that the alleged plea of rehabilitation did not have any nexus with the trial. As per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the duty of Child Welfare Committee was only to trace the parents of the victim child and hand over the child to the parents. Hence, the Court was not right in refusing the mother of the victim to have custody of her child. Mr Dostoor drew my attention to the fact that in October 2007 the application was filed and since then it was kept pending. Hence, the Court was not right in refusing the mother of the victim to have custody of her child. Mr Dostoor drew my attention to the fact that in October 2007 the application was filed and since then it was kept pending. The allegation of bias pertained to post October period and obviously did not find place in the petition. Mr. Dostoor lastly contended that he did not pray for stay of the proceeding and as such could not be accused of delaying the proceeding. I have perused the record carefully. I have considered the rival contentions. I am of the view, once charges were framed the learned Judge should be given an opportunity to ex pedite the trial. From both the petitions I did not find any reason why the cases should be quashed and / or transferred to other Court. With regard to quashing, I am of the view that the proper stage did not come to conclusively hold that Ultadanga Police Station did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Section 178(d) inter alia provides as under – ".................where it consists of several acts done in different local areas". From the statement of Saswati so corroborated by the victim as well as the police team, it would appear that the victim was found roaming near Gajnavi Bridge and was ultimately taken custody by the police. The incident of rescuing the girl from Gajnavi Bridge area is a relevant fact within the meaning of section 178 (d). Hence, Ultadanga Police Station was within its right to initiate proceeding. Mr. Dostoor relied on my own decision in the case of Pulak Kolay (CRR 1456 of 2010) dated January 20, 2011. In the said decision I considered the evidence on record and ultimately held that that the offence committed under sections 406 as well as 498(A) arose at Hoogly and not at Asansol. Hence, Asansol Court could not have jurisdiction. In the instant case, since I have just now held that a part of the incident occurred at Gajnavi Bridge, Ultadanga Police Station did have jurisdiction. The said judgment would be of no assistance to me. 9. I do not find any scope to interfere with the proceeding at this stage. The applications thus fail and are hereby dismissed. 10. SINCE on merit I found that the prayer was misconceived. The said judgment would be of no assistance to me. 9. I do not find any scope to interfere with the proceeding at this stage. The applications thus fail and are hereby dismissed. 10. SINCE on merit I found that the prayer was misconceived. I do not wish to go into the question of locus standi of Mr. Prahladka and leave it upon to be decided in any other appropriate matter. Before parting with, I would be failing in my duty if I do not notice serious allegation of Mr Dostoor on the issue of transmission of records. The learned Judge City Sessions Court passed an order requesting transmission of the records. Mr. Dostoor contended that almost eight months passed records were not transmitted. I earnestly request the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sealdah to make Photostat copies of the records and send photostat copies to Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata in Criminal Revisional No. 207 of 2010. He however, need not send the original records to avoid unnecessary delay in the trial. 11. URGENT photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.