Mazgaon Application Pita

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

54TH COURT, AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO OF 2012

IN

RA NO 31/2012 IN LAC NO 12/2012

URVASHI DHARMENDRA THAKUR

Aged about 22 years, having address

K-3/92/93, Sainik Enclave,

Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi

The Victim No 8 in RA/31/2012

Of Kala Chowki Police

Station dated 10/02/2012 ) …… Applicant

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) …. Respondent

Through Kala Chowki Police Station

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page Nos.

1 Synopsis 3 to 3

2 The Application 4 to 11

3 Verification 12 to 12

4 Vakalatnama 13 to 14

5 Exhibit “A” Copy of R.A 15 to 20

6 Exhibit “B” Copy of Order dated 02/03/2012. 21 to 27

7 Exhibit “C” (colly) 28 to 32

8 Affidavit in Support 33 to 35




IN

RA NO 31/2012 IN LAC NO 12/2012

URVASHI DHARMENDRA THAKUR …… Applicant

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …. Respondent


SYNOPSIS

09-02-2012 raid was conducted at New Canara Bar, Sewree

10-02-2012 the victim was produced before the 54th Court

02-03-2012 the victim was sent to Rescue Foundation

The custody application of the mother of the victim was rejected

Hence this Application

Acts Referred;-

Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.

Points to be urged:-

1) Whether the custody of victim is legal,

2) Whether the victim is entitled to set at liberty in the custody of her mother

Any citation to be cited:-

At the time of argument




IN

RA NO 31/2012 IN LAC NO 12/2012


Aged about 22 years, having address



New Delhi

The Victim no 8 in RA/31/2012



VERSUS



HUMBLE APPLICANTION OF APPLICANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The Applicant above named submits under:-

1. The Applicant was apprehended by the authorities of Kala Chowki Police

station under the provisions laid in the Prevention of immoral Traffic Act

(herein after referred as the said Act) and is at present at Bhoisar Rescue

Foundation. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “ A” is the copy of the

Remand Application

2. The Applicant was produced before the Learned Magistrate 54th Court

wherein the Learned Magistrate was pleased to remand the Applicant to

Rescue Foundation, Bhoisar after the report submitted by the Probation

officer. The mother and natural Guardian of the Applicant applied for the

Custody of the Applicant wherein the Probation officer was misled by his

opinion and pleased to reject the Application for custody of the Applicant

without any scrutiny and the Applicant was sent to Rescue Foundation,

Bhoisar for a period of one year for training and rehabilitation. Hereto

annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is the copy of the Order dated 2nd

March 2012.

3. The crux of the case is as under:-

The Applicant was apprehended by the authorities of the Kala Chowki

Police Station from the New Canara Restaurant & Bar, T. J. Road, Sewree,

wherein the Applicant was working as waiter. The Applicant was

apprehended along with others under the raid conducted by the Social

Service Branch of Mumbai Police, with the assistance of Kala Chowki

Police Station on 9th February 2012. The Applicant was produced before the

Learned Magistrate 54th Court. It is submitted in the Report of the Probation

officer that the Applicant, who is from New Delhi, was in Mumbai under the

pretext of false promise of marriage and she was employed in the said New

Canara Restaurant & Bar, T. J. Road, Sewree, Mumbai. The mother of the

Applicant made the Application for custody of the Applicant but the same

was rejected by Enquiry Report/order dated 2nd March 2012. Hence this

Application. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “C” (colly) is the

copies of the Ration card, Pan Card and Family photographs to show the

relationship of the mother with Applicant.

4. It is submitted by the Applicant that the Order dated 2nd March, 2012

contains the Report of the Probation Officer submitted before the Ld.

Magistrate which itself reveals that the Applicant is 21 years of age and

uneducated. Further from the Report itself it also reveals that the Applicant

was brought to Mumbai on the promise of marriage. It is also submitted in

the Report that Applicant is needed a proper training to equip herself top the

world.

5. The Applicant submits that the Report of the Probation Officer is against the

principle of natural justice as from the Report it clears that the Applicant is

not consented or shown her willingness to get rehabilitation and training and

hence the acceptance of the order of Probation Officer will amount unlawful

detention of the Applicant.

6. It is submitted by the Applicant that the Ld Magistrate had obtained the

assistance of the enquiry committee as per inquiry u/s 17 of the said Act,

which is as under :

“ 1. When the special police officer removing a person under sub-section

(4) of section 15 or a police officer rescuing a person under sub-section (1)

of section 16, is for any reason unable to produce him before the appropriate

magistrate as required by sub-section (2) of section 16, he shall forthwith

produce him before the nearest magistrate of any class, who shall pass such

orders as he deems proper for his safe custody until he is produced before

the appropriate magistrate, or, as the case may be, the magistrate issuing the

order :

Provided that no person shall be :

(i) Detained in custody under this sub-section for a period

exceeding ten days from the date of the order under this

sub-section; or

(ii) Restored to or placed in the custody of a person who may

exercise a harmful influence over him.

2. When the person is produced before the appropriate magistrate under sub-

section 5 of section 15 or the magistrate under sub-section 2 of section 16,

he shall, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, cause an inquiry to

be made as to the correctness of the information received under sub-section

(1) of section 16, the age, character and antecedents of the person and the

suitability of his parents, guardian or husband for taking charge of him and

the nature of the influence which the conditions in his home are likely to

have on him if he is sent home, and, for this purpose, he may direct a

probation officer appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, 20

of 1958, to inquire into the above circumstances and into the personality of

the person and the prospects of his rehabilitation.

3. The magistrate may, which an inquiry is made into a case under sub-section

(2), pass such orders as he deems proper for the safe custody of the person.

Provided that where a person rescued under section 16 is a child or

minor, it shall be open to the Magistrate to place such child or minor in any

institution established or recognized under any Children Act for the time

being in force in any State for the safe custody of children.

Provided further that, no person shall be kept in custody for the

purpose for a period exceeding three weeks from the date of such an order,

and no person shall be kept in the custody of a person likely to have a

harmful influence over him.

4. Where the magistrate is satisfied, after making an inquiry as required under

sub-section (2),

(a) that the information received is correct; and

(b) that he is in need of care and protection,

he may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), make an order

that such person be detained for such period, being not less than one year

and not more than three years, as may be specified in the order, in a

protective home, or in such other custody as he shall, for reasons to be

recorded in writing, consider suitable;

Provided that such custody shall not be that of a person or body of

persons of a religious persuasion different from that of the person and that

those entrusted with the custody of the person including the persons in

charge of a protective home, may be required to enter into a bond which

may, where necessary and feasible, contain undertakings based on directions

relating to the proper case, guardianship, education, training and medical

and psychiatric treatment of the person as well as supervision by a person

appointed by the court, which will be in force for a period not exceeding

three years.

5. In discharging his functions under sub-section (2), a magistrate may

summon a panel of five respectable persons, three of whom shall, wherever

practicable, be women, to assist him, and may, for this purpose, keep a list

of experienced social welfare workers, particularly women special welfare

workers, in the field of suppression of immoral traffic in persons.

7. An appeal against an order made under sub-section (4) shall lie to the Court

of Session whose decision on such appeal shall be final.”

8. It is submitted by the Applicant that while passing any order u/s 17 of the

said Act, the Ld. Magistrate is required to scrutinize the information

received through the inquiry report of the Probation Officer. Further it is the

mandate as per the provision of the said Act that the Ld Magistrate has to

give an opportunity of being heard the Applicant regarding Age, Character,

Antecedent of the Applicant and prospectus of rehabilitation which is absent

in the present case and hence the order of Probation officer is against law

and required to be set aside.

9. It is submitted by the Applicant that as far as the claim of the mother

regarding the custody of the Applicant, which has been rejected by the

Probation Officer and if the same will be accepted by the Ld. Magistrate

without any further inquiry the same will be against the principle of nature

of justice as the Probation Officer mislead herself that the mother has

allowed the Applicant to go with a stranger is beyond logical acceptance as

no mother will ever do or allow their own kids for the submission of the

Probation officer in the inquiry Report and hence the same is required to be

discarded in toto as the same is without any material substance.

10.It is submitted by the Applicant that the perusal of the enquiry report of the

Probation Officer or the remand application, nowhere it appears any

information to suggest the involvement of the Applicant in any immoral act

as alleged. Further nowhere the prime consideration that is the consent of the

Applicant regarding rehabilitation is a part of the Report and hence the

inquiry Report of the Probation Officer can be discarded in toto in default of

the mandate provision of law and if the order passed by the Probation officer

will be considered the same will against law and hence is required to set

aside.

11.The Applicant is before this Hon’ble Court with her Application/Appeal

against the inquiry Report of Probation Officer as against Applicant in

respect of order dated 2nd March 2012 on the grounds which are as under :

a. The inquiry Report of the Probation officer is against the principle of

equity and natural justice.

b. The inquiry Report of the Probation officer is nothing but non-

application of judicial mind.

c. The Report of the Probation Officer is full of legal errors and the same is

required to be set aside.

d. The inquiry Report of the Probation Officer is against the mandate

provision of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.

e. The Applicant has not given her consent regarding the rehabilitation.

f. There is no antecedent of the Applicant further the RA itself is self-

explanatory regarding the non-involvement of the Applicant.

g. The other Applicants are already released by the Ld. Magistrate.

h. The submission of the Probation Officer that the mother of Applicant had

allowed the Applicant to go with the male stranger, is grossly untrue.

i. The Probation Officer erred in reaching conclusion that the mother of the

Applicant will not take proper care of the Applicant in future and hence

she is not fit person to get custody of the Applicant.

It is therefore prayed as under:-

1. That the inquiry report of the Probation Officer in respect of order dated 2nd

March, 2012 in L.A.C No. 12 of 2012 in R.A. No. 31 of 2012 by probation

officer as against the Applicant Urvashi Dharmendra Thakur and the same

may be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the Applicant Urvashi Dharmendra Thakur may be set at liberty in the

care of the Applicant being the mother and natural guardian of the

Applicant.

3. Any such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case

Advocate for the Applicant

Urvashi D Thakur

Jiten N. Bhardwaj ` (Applicant)

(Advocate for Applicant)

Mumbai this th day of March 2012

VERIFICATION

I, Urvashi Dharmendra Thakur, an adult, Indian inhabitant residing at

K3/92/93, Sainik Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi do hereby state and declare on

solemn affirmation that whatever stated herein above is true and correct to the best

of my Knowledge and I declare the same to be true.

Explained and identified by me

Dated this th March 2012

Applicant

Jiten N. Bhardwaj

Advocate for Applicant

I am a member/not a member of the Welfare fund and therefore, additional court fee stamps of Rs. 2/- are not affixed herewith.

Advocate




IN

RA NO 31/2012 IN LAC NO 12/2012




New Delhi

The Applicant in RA/31/2012



VERSUS



V A K A L A T N A M A

I, the Applicant above named hereby appoint Shri JITEN NAGENDRA

BHARDWAJ, & Shri AJAY TRIPATHI, Advocates, High Court Bombay, to act,

appear and plead for me in the above captioned matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE SET MY HANDS TO THIS WRITING ON

THIS TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012.

Urvashi Dharmendra Thakur

(Applicant)

Accepted by

Jiten N. Bhardwaj Ajay Tripathi

(Advocates)




IN

RA NO 31/2012 IN LAC NO 12/2012




New Delhi

The Applicant No 8 in RA/31/2012



VERSUS



APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT

I, Urvashi Dharmendra Thakur, the Applicant above named, aged about 22 years,

do hereby beg to state on solemn affirmation as under :

1. The Applicant have filed the present Application inter-alia for various relief

as more particularly set out in the Application. I repeat, reiterate and adopt

the statements made out in the Application as if the same are incorporated

herein and form part of the present Affidavit. I crave leave to refer to any

rely upon the papers and proceedings in the Application when produced.

2. In the circumstances, I say and submit that the Applicant is entitled for the

reliefs as prayed for and if the same are not granted, irreparable injury, loss

and harm would be caused to the Applicant.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai.

This th day of March, 2012.

Applicant

Before me.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

54TH COURT, AT MAZGAON,

MUMBAI

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO

OF 2012

IN

R.A. NO. 31/2012 IN L.A.C NO. 12/2012

URVASHI D. THAKUR

....APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

......RESPONDENT

APPLICATION OF VICTIM NO. 8.

JEETEN N. BHARDWAJADVOCATE, HIGH COURT BOMBAY

A-200, AVISKAR, SLEATER ROAD,

GRANT ROAD(WEST),MUMBAI- 400 007.

MOB.: 9892443836

Documents

Mazgaon Application Pita