The Supreme Court has directed the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of West Bengal to continue with its investigation in two cases related to ancestral property without succumbing to any pressure and inform the Court whether there was any interference.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti passed the orders on Monday on a petition filed by a 64-year-old widow and her daughter, alleging that Advocate Protap Chandra Dey, husband of sitting Calcutta High Court judge Justice Amrita Sinha, was trying to thwart the probe in two criminal cases filed by the petitioners against their relatives related to ancestral property.
The Apex Court further directed the West Bengal government to file a status report on the probe in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing in December.
The petitioners claimed that a part of the said property was passed down to the widow after her father’s death, although her elder brother and his family were allegedly making attempts to throw her out of the property.
Filed by Advocate Mithu Jain, the plea claimed that the widow was threatened on several occasions to give up the property and even physically beaten, which was stated to have been captured by CCTV cameras. Therefore, two criminal cases were filed by the widow against her relatives.
One of the cases involved allegations of criminal conspiracy, causing hurt, cheating, forgery and wrongful restraint.
The second one involved allegations of attempt to commit culpable homicide, outraging the modesty of a woman, house trespass, causing hurt and criminal intimidation as well Section 25 of the Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
The petitioners alleged that Advocate Dey was then engaged by their relatives and that he has been using his clout and exerting pressure on the investigating agency so that the above cases were not investigated properly.
It was further argued that owing to such pressure, the investigation in the two criminal cases has been brought to a standstill.
The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to ensure that two criminal complaints were properly investigated without any influence by Advocate Dey or Justice Sinha.
As per the petitioners, Advocate Dey has been ‘instrumental’ in dictating the mode and manner in which the investigation, if at all, was to progress, while also exerting influence on account of his spousal status.
They said although the investigation in the cases cited had earlier led to the arrest of one of the accused, it was now being thwarted.
The plea further alleged that the Investigating Officer was summoned to the official chambers of Justice Sinha, wherein he was rebuked, reprimanded and ordered to drop the criminal investigation as the matter was purely civil in nature.
It said Justice Sinha was ‘furious’ over the IO. She claimed that police have interfered into a civil dispute and arrested someone who was not at all involved in any criminal activity.
Hence, due to the involvement of the High Court Judge, the Respondent No. 5 has not been able to make any further progress in the investigation, noted the plea.
The petitioners said they had never heard or imagined that a sitting Judge of a High Court would get involved in a dispute for the sake of her husband’s personal and professional gains.
The plea sought inquiry into the alleged actions of Advocate Dey and Justice Sinha. It further sought police protection to the petitioners.
The Counsel appearing for the West Bengal government submitted on Monday that a report was earlier sent to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court regarding the status of the probe and the allegations made.
The state government has been conducting the investigation fairly and proceeding with caution considering the allegations made by the petitioners, he added.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and Advocate Nina Nariman. Advocates Sunil Fernandes and Astha Sharma appeared for the State of West Bengal.