Case Is Extraordinary In Nature: Calcutta HC Transfers Rape Case Of IAS Officer’s Wife To Deputy Commissioner Of Women Police
The Calcutta High Court has transferred an alleged rape case of the wife of an IAS (Indian Administrative Service) Officer to the Deputy Commissioner of Women Police.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the victim working at a managerial post of a private company whose husband was posted outside West Bengal.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj said, “… this Court is of the view that the matter is indeed extraordinary in nature and calls for extraordinary measures. The petitioner is clearly a victim of continuous torture and oppression. The investigation officer never bothered to inform the victim of the application being moved by the accused, further exacerbating the victim’s distress. Moreover, the officers failed to seize the CCTV footage of Lake Police Station, where both the officers and family members of the accused coerced the petitioner to withdraw the complaint.”
Advocate Antarikhya Basu appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Standing Counsel (SSC) Amitesh Banerjee appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was a victim of a heinous crime of sexual abuse, allegedly committed by the accused on two separate occasions. The incidents occurred at her residence and thereafter, despite the gravity of the offences which warranted charges under Sections 62 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the case was instead registered under less severe ones viz. Sections 74, 75, 76, 79, 115, and 351 of BNS. It was submitted by the counsel that this dilution of charges was due to tampering with the written complaint by respondents, being the police personnel attached to the Lake Police Station.
The victim had filed an FIR and it was alleged that, she was subjected to coercion and intimidation by the son and wife of the accused, who were allegedly brought to the police station by the officers to pressure her into withdrawing her complaint. Despite these serious accusations, no scrutiny or investigation was made of the CCTV footage from the Lake Police Station, despite the petitioner's explicit request. The petitioner, therefore, filed the writ petition before the High Court, highlighting procedural lapses and tampering of evidences by the police in handling her case.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “The charges under Sections 62 and 64 of the BNS, 2023 were not considered by the Sessions Judge, Alipore. Therefore, the respondent no.9 cannot be allowed to enjoy any liberty, as the accused continues to pose a threat to the petitioner.”
The Court further cancelled the bail granted to the accused by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, as well as the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, and directed the police authorities to take necessary steps in this regard.
“This Court holds the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs or orders to any person or authority for enforcement of any right conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Moreover, as held in Dhirendra Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 CrLJ 4791 (Jhar) that when the High Courts are satisfied, either that an order passed under the code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any Court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured then the High Courts can and must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) and Article 226 of the Constitution”, it observed.
The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary action against the respondents and other lady officers for their failure to follow procedural norms and for tampering with the complaint by necessary authorities, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to the legal provisions designed to protect victims of sexual crimes, particularly concerning the recording of statements and the handling of complaints.
Accordingly, the High Court transferred the case, issued necessary directions, and cancelled the bail of the accused.
Cause Title- X (Victim) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Antarikhya Basu, Moyukh Mukherjee, and Sayan Mukherjee.
Respondents: SSC Amitesh Banerjee and Advocate Tarak Karan.
