MANTOO RANI DUTTA Vs. SOVANATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 31-7-79 passed by Shri B. C. Paul, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, in case No. C/4394of 1976 dropping the proceeding under Section 18 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 [substituted by the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956] (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts in brief of the proceeding as seen from the complaint petition is that the premises No.72, Premchand Baral Street, Police Station Muchipara, Calcutta 12 originally belonged to Late Mr. Ashutosh Chandra Dutta, husband of the petitioner. After the death of the husband, the petitioner as sole widow and three daughters and one son became the owners of the said premises. During his lifetime Late Mr. Dutta inducted a Hindu widow named Indu Bala Dassias a monthly tenant at will in respect of the aforesaid premises within the ambit and meaning of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. After the death of Mr. Dutta the petitioner was collecting rents from the said Indu Bala Dassi who died on 9th March, 1976 leaving no legal heirs. The opposite party No.1 used to pay all monthly rentals at regular intervals under the cloak of whole time domestic servant under the said Indu Bala Dassi. Some time thereafter the petitioner made an on spot enquiry through one Sankar Prasad Dutta, a bona fide duly authorised agent of the petitioner to see as to whether the premises were used for any other purposes and on such enquiry it revealed that the said Indu Bala Dassi was out and out a prostitute and that the O.P. No.1 had been acting as pimp under her and Indu Bala converted the premises in question into regular brothel. But O.P. No.1 tried to convince the petitioner both personally and by a series of letters through advocates that the said Indu Bala had been his second wife and the tenancy should be transferred in her name instantaneously. However, it was revealed upon the death of the said Indu Bala that the O.P. No.1 in active connivance and concert with the O.P. Nos. 2 to 12 had been regularly and systematically running a brothel in the aforesaid premises. It further revealed that the said Indu Bala had been the widow of the Bibhuti Bhushan Ghosh and as such the claim set forth by O.P. No.1 was cut out false. The premises are in the vicinity of a Shiva Temple where regularly men and women of polished quarters and/or highly cultured and accomplished families came to offer their religious offerings and the premises were surrounded by posh residential quarters and public place within a radius of 200 yards. Under the circumstances the petitioner prayed before the court to refer the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, with a direction to have the contents of the complaint duly inquired into by the Officer-in-Charge of Immoral Traffic Squad, Head Quarters, Force, Lalbazar and upon the perusal of the report to be pleased to issue notices as to why the aforesaid premises should not be attached for improper use thereof and cause the premises to be restored to the petitioner as contemplated within the ambit and meaning of Section 18(1)(a) & (b) of the said Act.

(3.) Accordingly, the learned Magistrate directed the police to make an enquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint.