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 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. 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. 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.
(3.) 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. ;