The judgment of acquittal of co-accused persons is not admissible in the trial of another accused. Each case must be decided based on the evidence adduced therein.

JUDGMENT

The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the first Information Report, the Charge Sheet and the entire proceedings including all orders therein in connection with Digha Mohana Coastal P.S. Case No.10/19 dated 09.04.2019 being S.C. Case No-148 of 2019 & Charge Sheet No-22/19 dated 24/06/2019 under Section 366A/368/370/370A/372/378/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4/5/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 4/8/17/21 of the POCSO Act now pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur (1st Court).

The petitioner’s case is that she was not named in the F.I.R initially but subsequently after completion of Investigation the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the charge sheet and she has been charged under Section 120B I.P.C. and 21 POCSO Act, 2012 & 3/5/9 of the Immoral Traffic Act.

Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the settled principle of law that offence under the Immoral Trafficking Act should be investigated by the Special Police Officer after due sanction by the State Government by way of gazette notification but so far the present case is concerned the method of the investigation done by the police officer culminating into the filing of the charge sheet/final report are absolutely contrary to the present position of law and thus the police report submitted against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

It is further stated that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and in fact the filing of the F.I.R by the police authority/opposite party no.2 is a defective one and is not permitted in law and thus the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

The place where the offence was allegedly committed was given on lease by one Sri Sachinandan Das Adhikary to the present petitioner and in this context there was an agreement between the parties.

Petitioner states that at the time of alleged commission of offence she was not present there, moreover she was unknown to the other accused persons and in fact she has got no knowledge regarding the alleged offence.

Petitioner further states that the instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against your petitioner in order to harass and to spite her in the eye of the society which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same should be quashed.

That the initiation and/or continuation of the impugned proceedings in the Learned Trial Court has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner and thus liable to be quashed and/or set aside in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

The entire impugned proceedings of the Learned Trial Court is an abuse of the process of law as the instant proceeding is going on out of jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court and thus the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

The cognizance taken by the Learned Trial Court is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The continuation of the instant proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and it is imperative in the interest of justice, that the instant proceeding should be quashed.

That as the chance of ultimate conviction in the instant case is nil; no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to be continued by the learned Trial Court and as such the said proceedings should be quashed.

That if there is continuation of proceedings in absence of materials, it constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. Machinery of the court cannot be utilized for personal benefit. The object of invoking under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment in Sessions Trial case 148 of 2019 arising out of the same police station case, acquitting the other accused persons who faced the trial.

The prosecution case is that on