The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti has instructed the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) to carry on with their investigation without giving in to any external influence. They have also asked the CID to inform the Court if there has been any interference in their investigation.
A 64-year-old widow and her daughter have moved to the country’s highest court, claiming that the lawyer-husband of Justice Amrita Sinha, a judge in the Calcutta High Court, has been interfering in a criminal investigation.
The petitioners allege that advocate Protap Chandra Dey and his wife, Justice Amrita Sinha, have abused their authority and obstructed the investigation in two criminal cases filed by the petitioners against their relatives.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti has instructed the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) to carry on with their investigation without giving in to any external influence. They have also asked the CID to inform the Court if there has been any interference in their investigation.
The West Bengal State government has been instructed to submit a status report on the investigation in sealed form during the next court hearing in December.
The crux of the issue lies in an ongoing legal dispute concerning a specific piece of ancestral property.
The widow allegedly inherited a portion of the aforementioned property after her father passed away, according to the petitioners. However, it has been alleged that her elder brother and his family are actively endeavouring to evict her from the premises.
As to the petitioners, the widow was intimidated on multiple occasions to give up the property and even physically battered, which was alleged to have been captured by CCTV cameras.
Consequently, the widow filed two criminal proceedings against her family members.
One of the two cases involves accusations of criminal conspiracy, causing hurt, cheating, forgery, and wrongful restraint. The second case includes accusations of attempted culpable homicide, outraging the modesty of a woman, house trespass, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation, as well as Section 25 of the Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
The petitioners assert that after their relatives hired advocate Dey, he is using his position to exert pressure on the investigating agency and obstructing a thorough investigation of the aforementioned cases.
A further argument was made that the investigation in the two criminal cases has come to a halt due to the pressure.
The petitioners subsequently filed the current appeal before the Supreme Court, requesting direction to ensure that two criminal cases be thoroughly investigated without interference from Justice Sinha or Advocate Dey.
Their plea claims that advocate Dey has been “instrumental in dictating the mode and manner in which the investigation, if at all, is to progress, while also exerting influence on account of his spousal status.”
The plea further claims that the investigation in the mentioned cases initially resulted in the arrest of one of the suspects but is currently being obstructed.
In this regard, the petitioner has claimed that the investigating officer was summoned to the J official chambers of Justice Sinha and was criticised, scolded, and instructed to stop the criminal investigation because it was purely a civil matter.
“The Hon’ble Judge was furious and claimed that police have interfered into a civil dispute and arrested someone who is not at all involved in any criminal activity. Hence, due to the involvement of the Hon’ble Judge, the Respondent No. 5 has not been able to make any further progress in the investigation … The Petitioners had never heard or imagined that a sitting Judge of the Hon’ble High Court would get involved in a dispute for the sake of her husband’s personal and professional gains,“ the plea states.
Other prayers made by the petitioners include a prayer to direct an inquiry into the alleged actions of advocate Dey and Justice Sinha.
Further, the petitioners have requested that the top court to ensure that they receive sufficient police protection.
During today’s hearing, the state government informed the court that they had previously sent a report to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court regarding the progress of the investigation and the allegations made.
In response to the allegations made by the petitioners, the state government has asserted that it is diligently and impartially carrying out the investigation. It maintains that it is exercising prudence and carefulness in light of the aforementioned claims.