Appellate Division Cases
Rafiqul Majid Pintu alias Pintu …………………………………………..Petitioner
The State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka………….Respondents
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain C J
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
M. A. Aziz J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J
Date of Judgment
8th August 2004
The Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Section 561A.
Sections 9(1) and 10 read with Section 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
He further submits that the observation of the Tribunal and the direction High Court is competent to give direction to the court below or tribunal that to take cognizance under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain and application 561A is not cntatiled to take cognizance of the offence under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1992 (5)
Abdus Sobhan, Senior Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record For the Petitioner Not represented Respondent .
1. Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J:- Accused petitioner Rafiqul Majid Pintu alias Pintu seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2003 passed by the High Court Division disposing pf Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5462 of 2002 with some observations and directions upon the learned Judge of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal (in short the Tribunal).
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the leave petition are that one Nilufar Hasnat lodged a First Information Report with Ramna Police Station on 09.01.2002 alleging that her younger sister Sharmin Hasnat Nelly was allured by one Imtiaz Ahmed Sumon (coaccused) and pretended to have married her and then he left for United States of America and that thereafter he did not keep any connection with Sharmin Hasnat Nelly and in the month of November 2001 it was circulated in the media that aforesaid Sharimin Hasnat Nelly participated in the blue-film and the said blue-film was also circulated in the web site and on queries it revealed that by putting her under compulsion and intimidation accused Sumon against her will compelled her to take part in sexual abuses by making her uncovered and also compelled her to make morally wrong gestures in the said blue-film and the accused petitioner Rafiqul Majid Pintu and a few others abetted the aforesaid offence by putting her under coercion and threat to her life and on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Ramna P. S. Case No. 28 dated 09.01.2002 was started under Sections 9(1) and 10 read with Section 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and after investigation charge -sheet was submitted accordingly and the case being sent for trial the learned Judge of the Tribunal framed charge against the accused petitioner and others under the aforesaid provision of law.
3. The petitioner filed application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court Division by the impugned Judgment and order disposed of the application observing that the tribunal “also take cognizance of any offence under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesli Bidhan) Ain, 1995” and gave “direction upon the learned Tribunal to follow it at the right earnest ” and hence is this petition.
4. In support of the petition, Mr. Md. Abdus Sobhan, learned Counsel submits, inter alia, that the High Court Division while disposing of an application under Section 561A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure could not direct any enquiry nor give any direction as given
in the instant case.
5. He further submits that the observation of the Tribunal and the direction High Court is competent to give direction to the court below or tribunal that to take cognizance under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain and application 561A is not entatiled to take cognizance of the offence under Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1992 or giving direction to the Tribunal to follow the above observation are beyond the scope of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In course of submission the learned Advocate produced copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2004 wherefrom it appears that the Tribunal has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 6(1) and 14 of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate and perused the materials on record. On perusal of the materials including the police report we are of the view that it cannot be said that noproceeding lies against the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of law nor the case is barred by law. In such view of the matter we find that the materials for quashing the proceeding are lacking and as such we do not find any fault with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division.
7. We are also of the view that the observations and directions given by the High Court Division do not call for interference by this court. There is no substance in the petition. The criminal petition is therefore, dismissed.
Source: III ADC (2006) 851