IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
The State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Fulkumari Paswan and Others – Respondents
AST Nos. 37, 38 of 2019, I.A. Nos. CAN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 9441, 9442, 10591, 10592, 10593, 10845 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-08-2021
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 21 and 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 102 , 156(3) , 190 and 164 - Sealed restaurant - Investigation - Challenged - Whether in a police diary, or otherwise or any part of such record used for any purpose save as provided in the Code - Whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on Court's satisfaction whether facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order - Held, Court do not find any reason to interfere with order directing CID to investigate - Additional Director General of Criminal Investigation Department shall assume charge of investigation as directed by learned Single Judge and conclude such investigation within 3 months from date of communication of order and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law - In view thereof, direction upon CJM to try and complete investigation is set aside - CJM shall record statements of victim if not recorded earlier within 2 weeks from date of communication of order - Appeals are disposed of
JUDGMENT :
SOUMEN SEN, J.
1. In view of inextricably connected issues involved in both the appeals by consent of the parties they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both the appeals are arising out of a common judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge in relation to two writ petitions challenging the sealing of the restaurant and investigation initiated by the police station concerned on the basis of complaint alleged to have been forcefully extracted from Saluja. The Learned Single Judge on being satisfied that the investigation was not fair and impartial directed the Criminal Investigation Department (in short ‘CID’) to take over the investigation and allowed opening of the sealed premises.
3. This order is under challenge.
4. Ms. Saluja Motey is the focal point in this litigation. She is supported in her cause by Fulkumari Pasman her present employer.
5. In order to appreciate the order impugned and the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to briefly narrate the facts.
6. Firstly, we discuss the facts of W.P.A.300 of 2019 filed by Fulkumari.
7. Fulkumari is the owner and runs a Restaurant cum Bar under the name and style of Golden Valley Restaurant situated at the heart of the city in Jalpaiguri. The restaurant had the requisite licence under the West Bengal (Selection of New Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003. The said licence was initially renewed on 1st February, 2019 by the Excise Authority and was again granted on 2nd August 2019 with a validity period until 31st March, 2020. It is alleged that under the license granted to the Restaurant the petitioner had permission for professional entertainment and playing of music (vocal or instrumental) on the licensed premises. On July 16th, 2019 between 9:45 pm and 10:15 pm, while the restaurant was open and doing business, a group of 100 policemen barged into the restaurant and arrested 13 performers including Ms. Saluja Motey, as well as the staff of the restaurant and the customers present; about 72 persons in total. The persons who were taken to the police station, particularly the customers, were subsequently released on bail. The license was re-issued to the restaurant on 2nd August, 2019, almost 15 days after the incident of 16th July, 2019. The entry of police personnel and sealing of the premises has been questioned by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner contended that the Excise Authorities did not ever raised any objection regarding conduct of the business of the writ petitioner and accordingly the police authorities did not have the power to enter the “Excise” premises and seal the said premises. It is alleged that at the instance of a rival business man Goutam Das, who owns and runs a Bar cum Restaurant “Hotel De La Pritam” named after his son, barely 500 meters away from Golden Restaurant, Mr. Biswas Roy Sarkar, Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri and Ms. Upasana Gurung, Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Jalpaiguri, raided Golden Restaurant and illegally sealed the premises. Shri Das is the Government Pleader at Jalpaiguri and he misused his official position and political clout to influence the local administration and police to commit such sinister act. It is further alleged that the said police officers have coerced and forcefully compelled the female performers to lodge false complaints in which the husband of the writ petitioner was implicated. However, subsequently the female performer, made a representation, stating that such complaint was extracted forcefully. Fulkumari complained of atrocities and illegalities committed by the said police officers having been actuated by extraneous reasons and trade rivalry.
8. The relevant provisions of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 authorises only the District Magistrate or the authorities mentioned under the Act having the power to take any action in respect o
Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India
Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
Jamuna Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar
K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone of Police
Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others
Mahmood vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69
Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Nevada Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and Others
Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and Others
R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab
Sasi Thomas vs. State and Others
State of Kerala vs. P.B. Sourabhan and Others
S.S. & Co. vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (2008) 5 SCC 772
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Sidharta Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Point of law: Magistrate's power Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide, for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the polic....
The investigation must be unbiased, honest, and just, and fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The power to dire....
No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and man in street is made to run from o....
The necessity for a C.B.I. investigation arises in cases where police personnel are accused, ensuring fairness and public confidence in the judicial process.
The court established that the right to a fair investigation is fundamental, and failure by the police to uphold this right necessitates judicial intervention.
Point of law : There is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.