- (1.) The facts of this case as narrated in my Judgment and Order dated February 18, 2011 are reproduced below:- "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.) In this backdrop the Police initiated a proceeding inter alia against one Nitu Singh under Section 366A,372,373,342,324 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas. Nitu Singh applied for quashing of the said proceeding before me being C.R.R. No. 3334 of 2010. The present petitioner claiming to be a Journalist also made an application being C.R No. 2934 of 2010 inter alia praying for quashing of the entire proceeding and in the alternative, transfer the same to other Court having appropriate jurisdiction. I heard both the applications analogously and disposed of the same vide Judgment and Order dated February 18, 2011. It was contended on behalf of both the petitioners that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain the said application. Moreover the learned Judge was biased and the litigant would not be getting appropriate justice from the learned Magistrate. I rejected all the contentions made by both the petitioners. I was of the view that stage did not come to decide whether the concerned Police Station did have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It could only be examined at the time of trial. I also noticed that the charges had already been framed. I dismissed both the applications. Being aggrieved, Nitu Singh approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No. 2548 of 2011. The Apex Court dismissed the same vide Order dated 8 th April, 2011. The other petitioner Deepak Kumar Prahladka, Journalist, filed the above application on March 16, 2011 inter alia praying for review of the order. Mr. Prahladka contended before me that there was error apparent on the face of the record. I failed to appreciate the facts involved in the said case. Mr. Prahladka appearing in person contended before me that the so-called victim was major. She was sex worker by profession. The Police in connivance with NGO initiated a case with Ultadanga Police Station.
(3.) Elaborating his argument, Mr. Prahladka contended that the victim was a sex-worker. She was a major. She was residing at Satna where she was earlier caught for sexual offence. She came back to Calcutta and started staying at Sonagachhi red light area as a tenant where she defaulted. She fled away from the said place without paying rent to the land lord and was trying to go back to her native place when the Police caught her near Calcutta Railway Station. According to Mr. Prahladka, the offence as allegedly committed, did not happen within the jurisdiction of Ultadanga Police Station. Even giving credence to the case made out by the prosecution it could only be said to have occurred either at Bortola or Shyam Pukur Police Station in whose jurisdiction she was staying or kept at Satna wherefrom she was allegedly abducted. Mr. Prahladka made it clear that he had no personal interest in the matter. He approached the Court against the Police atrocities. According to him, the modus operandi of the Police was to support sleaze racket run by NGO by arresting the sex workers and/or other girls and sell them abroad earning in dollars. The present case was no exception.;