- (1.) The present petitioners who have been charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366A/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1955 have moved this Court for quashing of the said charge-sheet on the following grounds; (a) The defacto-complainant and the victim girl by filing affidavits have now admitted that the petitioners are innocent and out of misunderstanding the FIR has been lodged against them and her date of birth being February 2, 1989, on the alleged date of incident, i.e., on July 31, 2008 she was above the age of 19 years. (b) The charge-sheet under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, cannot be sustained in the eye of law inasmuch as the investigation was conducted by a police officer who was not a special police officer appointed under the said Act.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as for the State and the defacto-complainant. Considered the materials on record, more particularly the pleadings in the instant criminal revisional application as well as those contained in the affidavits filed on behalf of the defacto-complainant and the victim girl.
(3.) Now, having regards to the charge-sheeted materials appearing from the Case Diary, I find that in the First Information Report there is specific allegations against the present petitioners that they were involved in abducting the victim girl, claimed to be a minor, with intent to force and seduce her to illicit intercourse with any person against her will for their wrongful gain and in furtherance to such intention she was removed to Mumbai, where she was employed and used for the purpose of prostitution. Such allegations were sufficiently corroborated by the statement of the other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. In connection with the aforesaid case after recovery of the victim girl her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her such statement which was recorded on July 31, 2008 she claimed to be aged about 17 years and vividly described as to how the present petitioners, more particularly the petitioner no. 1 and his wife Rupali Saha along with other charge-sheeted accused persons abducted her and by deceitful means induced her to go from her residence to Bombay, with the false assurance of providing a lucrative job, although the actual intent was to compel her to illicit intercourse with other persons against her will. Thereafter having taken her to Bombay they forced her against her will to marry one Palash Sardar by performing fake marriage ceremonies. She was then taken to Kalyani at the house of Palash and then again after a few days from there she was removed to Bombay where the accused persons sold her to one 'Seth' knowing that she would be employed and used for the sake of prostitution and was actually sexually abused and forcibly employed in prostitution for commercial purpose.;