LILY MANNA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application dated 14. 6. 2007 under Section 401 read with section 482 of Cr. P. C. has been filed to challenge an order dated 16. 5. 2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamluk in case No. M. P. 937/05 whereby the learned Magistrate directed one Aninda Manna, husband of oppositge party No. 2 herein to produce his son, Subham Manna before him. Aninda Manna against whom the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order was married to Smt. Papiya Manna, the opposite party no. 2 herein and a male child Subham Manna was born of the wedlock. Aninda manna is in the Indian Army. Papiya Manna, the wife of Aninda Manna filed a petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamluk under Section 97 of the Cr. P. C. alleging that her minor child of 9 years of age had been taken away by her mother-in-law Smt. Lily Manna who was the opposite party before the learned Magistrate and the petitioner herein in the revisional application. Lily Manna told the learned Magistrate that the child had been taken away by its father, Aninda Manna and the statement of Lily Manna was supported by the report of the Lieutenant Colonel A. K. Verma dated 24. 4. 2007. The learend magistrate recorded that the mother of the child was completely in dark about the whereabouts of the child, and directed, upon hearing the parties and examining the documents Aninda Manna, husband of Papiya Manna, the petitioner before the learned Magistrate to produce his son, Subham Manna before him. Thus, the petition before the learned Magistrate was filed by the daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order dated 16. 5. 2007 passed by the learned Magistrate, mother-in-law has preferred this revisional application on the ground that the order of the learned Magistrate was not supported by provision of the Cr. P. C. , that the learned Magistrate directed the employer of the son of the petitioner herein to take steps for production of the child before the Court, that the learned Magistrate should have dismissed the application filed by her daughter-in-law, Papiya Manna as the child is in the custody of the father. It has been contended in the revisional application that the petitioner's daughter-in-law, Papiya Manna got herself separated in mess and did not give company to the child and it was seen that the grand mother used to look after the child. It was alleged by Lily Manna that her daughter-in-law filed the application under Section 97 of Cr. P. C. before the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate, Tamluk being misguided by the local people. The petitioner filed a revisional application being AST No. 2148 of 2005 under Section 401 of Cr. P. C. before this Court and also filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the petition of Papiya Manna under Section 97 of Cr. P. C. and it was contended that the child was being provided with education by the father. The petitioner also filed another revisional application being No. CRR 3967/05 and that revisional application as also the earlier revisional application being no. CRR 521/06 were taken up by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice S. K. Gupta who was pleased to dispose of both the applications and set aside the order dated 26. 12. 2005 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing search warrant and the order of the Hon'ble Court was communicated to the learned Magistrate. The fact of the child being in the custody of the father was communicated to the learned Magistrate by filing an affidavit sworn before the learned C. J. M. at tamluk and the learned Magistrate, in the circumstances, should have dropped the proceeding. There is no ingredient to unfold a case against the father of the child concerning any commission of any offence and accordingly, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 16. 5. 2007 directed Aninda Manna to produce the child may be set aside.

(3.) THIS Court granted a stay for a limited period against the order impugned. During the pendency of this revisional application, Papiya Manna filed another application praying for vacating the interim order dated 15. 6. 07 passed by this Court alleging that she was driven out by her mother-in-law on 16. 11. 2005 after snatching away the child and she had lodged a case against her husband and others under Sections 498a/406 of I. P. C. and that the learned magistrate was justified in drawing up a proceeding under Section 97 of the cr. P. C.