Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 333 (CAL)

Debabrata Gayen v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-11

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, SUBAL BAIDYA

body2013
Judgment :- Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated May 6,2013 is seeking the following principal relief:- “ (b) A writ of and/or nature of Habeas Corpus commanding upon the Respondents, their agents, men, superiors, subordinates, successors in office to produce the said Rita Gayen, wife of the Petitioner as per complaint lodged by the Petitioner;” Mr Lahiri appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the specific case to support the prayer for a habeas corpus has been stated in para.12, which is quoted below:- “12. That it is specifically and clearly stated that the Petitioner being law-abiding citizen of India without getting any relief from any cornoer whatsoever sent written complaint on 24.4.2013 requesting to trace out the missing girl and/or wife of the Petitioner namely Rita Gayen and also requested to bring the said girl from the custody of Respondent No.5 being the kidnapper. The said complaint sent to the Respondent No.2, 3, and 4 under Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due on 25.4.2013 at 9.30 hours from the G.P.O., Kolkata which was duly been served upon the said Respondents in time, which will be projected from the internet copy of the Indian Post.” The fifth respondent referred to in para.12 is the following person:- “5. Ansari Rahaman, son of Gaji Rahaman, Village: Harihar Para, near Berhampore Railway Station, P.O. & P.S.Berhampore, District: Murshidabad, Pin: 742149.” Mr. Banerjee appearing for the State has received written instructions from the officer in charge of Gosaba police station in which a case No.44/13 dated March 13,2013 has been registered under ss.365/372/34 IPC pursuant to an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under s.156(3) CrPC, on a petition of complaint filed by the petitioner against the fifth respondent. The officer in charge has stated that the fifth respondent and the woman both are yet to be located. In view of the fact that on the basis of an order passed by the criminal court the officer in charge of the police station concerned has already registered an FIR and has taken steps for investigation of the case, we have asked Mr. Public Prosecutor to appear and assist us. In view of the fact that on the basis of an order passed by the criminal court the officer in charge of the police station concerned has already registered an FIR and has taken steps for investigation of the case, we have asked Mr. Public Prosecutor to appear and assist us. Accordingly, he has appeared and submitted that the petitioner should extend all co-operation to the investigating officer so that the ongoing investigation of the case may be completed expeditiously and the accused and the woman both can be located. The allegation is that the fifth respondent “kidnapped” the petitioner’s wife. The police officer investigating the criminal case already instituted is to report to the criminal court competent to take cognizance. The criminal court is also competent to decide the question of custody of the woman. In our opinion, this is not a case for habeas corpus. what is needed here is completion of the ongoing investigation, not to ascertain whether the fifth respondent has been detaining the women illegally. For these reasons, we dispose of the W P saying that the petitioner is free to give all necessary information to the investigating officer and also to appear before the criminal court for ensuring an effective investigation. No costs.