BINOD DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought proper investigation with respect to First Information Report (FIR) being FIR No. 132 dated June 10, 2017. He has sought a direction upon the respondents to recover his minor daughter from the clutches of the private respondent, arrest the accused persons and, the Police to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the FIR.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the minor daughter of the petitioner who was to appear in the Class X examinations for the year 2017 went missing on June 9, 2017. Despite the best of the efforts of the petitioner to locate her missing daughter, the petitioner could not locate her. The petitioner thereafter lodged a complaint with the Police on June 10, 2017. The complaint was subsequently registered as a First Information Report bearing FIR No. 132 dated June 10, 2017. The Police did not take any initiative to recover the minor daughter of the petitioner. Although the private respondent No. 6 was an accused and the petitioner supplied specific informations with regard to the involvement of the private respondent No. 6 in the crime, the Police did not arrest the private respondent No. 6. The Police did not take initiative to gather the available evidences. The Close Circuit Television (C.C.T.V.) footage was not called for or looked into.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has highlighted the conduct of the Police subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. He has referred to the order dated February 16, 2018 passed by the High Court. He has submitted that, by such order, the respondent No. 3 was directed to ensure that a raid was carried out at the premises identified by the petitioner to recover the victim girl. However, despite such order, the police went to the social media to deny that there was any order of such nature. He has submitted that, this activity of the Police, shook the confidence of the petitioner in the Police. Moreover, subsequent to such order, the Police did not take any step to recover the minor daughter. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Police sought to pass off a dead body of a different person as that of the daughter of the petitioner. On DNA examination, it was established that, such dead body was not that of the petitioner. Present investigating authority being unable to recover the minor daughter of the petitioner, the Court should change the investigating authority and that, the Central Bureau of Investigation should be directed to take over the investigation forthwith. The petitioner has been patient with the Police. The Police have failed to deliver. The Special Investigating Team set up by the High Court made no progress since taking over charge. The Special Investigating Team is yet to recover the minor daughter. It is appropriate that, the Court should intervene to change the investigating agency. He has relied upon (State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2011 9 SCC 182) and (State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 3 SCC 571) in support of his contentions.