15.07.2026 Court No.42 Item No. 28 D.Hira CRR 3411 of 2017 With CRAN 3 of 2018 (Old No. 3610 of 2018) In the matter of :- Lakshmi Singh 1. When the matter is called on for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioner, and no accommodation is prayed for. The private opposite party No. 2 and the State are also unrepresented before this Court today. 2. Records reveal that this revisional application has been pending on the files of this Court since the year 2017. The petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to appear, advance arguments, and prosecute the application, yet a persistent attitude of dormancy and reluctance has been exhibited. The absence of the parties today clearly represents a total lack of interest in prosecuting this matter. 3. It is a settled principle of judicial administration that criminal revisions cannot be treated as escape hatches to indefinitely stall trials in the courts below, particularly in matters concerning grave offences of human trafficking. Litigants cannot be permitted to obtain ad-interim orders or keep such applications pending to clog the dockets of this Court. Public policy demands that long-pending matters be resolved with utmost dispatch. When parties choose to remain willfully absent despite several opportunities, the Court is duty-bound to examine the materials available on record and dispose of the application on its merits. Accordingly, I take up this 2 matter for final disposal on the basis of the materials available on record. 4. The instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner, Lakshmi Singh, praying for quashing of the impugned order dated September 04, 2017, passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta, in S.C. No. 14 of 2017 (S.T. No. 1(9) of 2017), arising out of Burtolla Police Station Case No. 41 of 2015 dated January 28, 2015, under Sections 370(A)(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, thereby framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 370, 370(A)(2), and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 5. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as gathered from the written complaint dated January 28, 2015, lodged by the private opposite party No. 2 (Subhasish Mondal, representative of the International Justice Mission), is that information was received regarding the detention and exploitation of minor girls for the purpose of forced prostitution in a brothel styled as "Nightlovers" located in the Sonagachi red-light area, Kolkata, within the jurisdiction of the Burtolla Police Station. 6. Pursuant to the said complaint, Burtolla Police Station Case No. 41 of 2015 was registered. A raid was conducted at the premises by the Immoral Traffic Section of the Detective Department, Lalbazar, where a girl, namely Minu Singh, was rescued. The petitioner, Lakshmi Singh, who is the biological 3 mother of the rescued girl, was arrested alongside other co- accused persons, Kapil Shaw and Rashid Alam, for running the illicit establishment and exploiting the victim for profit. 7. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 51/2016 dated February 19, 2016, under Sections 120B, 370, 370(A)(1), and 373 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, being exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, was committed and subsequently transferred to the Court of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta, for trial. 8. In the revisional petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order framing charge dated September 04, 2017, and the discharge from the criminal proceedings on the following grounds: First, that the petitioner is the biological mother of the alleged victim, Minu Singh, and as her natural guardian, she cannot be held liable for trafficking or exploiting her own daughter under Section 370 of the IPC. Second, that the statement of the daughter of the petitioner, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., completely exonerates the petitioner. It is contended that the victim stated she was residing at the premises of her own free will, was not forcibly brought there, and that her mother had no role in her presence at the brothel. Third, that the birth certificate of the victim collected from the Agra Municipality during investigation shows her date of birth 4 as January 01, 1989, establishing that she was a major (aged approximately 26 years) at the time of the raid, thereby negating the offences relating to the exploitation of minors. Fourth, that the Learned Trial Judge framed the charges mechanically without proper application of judicial mind to the exculpatory materials on record. 9. I have carefully examined the materials on record, including the First Information Report, the charge sheet, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the impugned order dated September 04, 2017. 10. The core of the petitioner’s argument rests upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the birth certificate indicating her majority. While these materials are undoubtedly relevant, they cannot be evaluated in a vacuum at the stage of framing of charges. 11. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to enter into a detailed, meticulous clinical examination of the evidence, nor must it balance the prosecution evidence against the defense of the accused. The test at this stage is whether there exists a "grave suspicion" against the accused, which would lead the Court to frame a charge and proceed with the trial. 12. The offence of human trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC, as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has a wide sweep. It penalises anyone who recruits, transports, harbours, transfers, or receives a person for the 5 purpose of exploitation, including physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation. Section 370(A)(2) specifically penalises the use of a trafficked person for sexual exploitation. 13. The fact that the petitioner is the biological mother of the victim does not immunize her from prosecution. On the contrary, the custody, harbouring, and facilitation of a vulnerable woman in a brothel styled as "Nightlovers" in Sonagachi an area notorious for commercial sexual exploitation raises a grave presumption of active facilitation and conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC. 14. The plea that the victim was residing in a brothel "of her own free will" and that her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. exonerates the petitioner is a matter of trial. In cases of institutionalised commercial sexual exploitation, the apparent "consent" or exculpatory statements of victims must be evaluated with extreme caution, taking into account the psychological coercion, familial pressures, and Stockholm-like dependence inherent in such trades. 15. Such complex factual disputes, including the determination of the victim's age and the voluntariness of her statement, cannot be summarily adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. They must be subjected to the rigorous fire of cross-examination during trial. 16. The Learned Trial Judge, upon perusal and consideration of the charge-sheet materials, found sufficient ground to presume that the accused persons have committed the 6 offences. I do not find any patent illegality, procedural impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order dated September 04, 2017, which would warrant the extraordinary intervention of this Court under its inherent jurisdiction. The allegations raised by the petitioner are factual defenses that must be decided by the Trial Court by recording evidence. 17. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this revisional application. 18. C.R.R. No. 3411 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. 19. The connected application being CRAN 3 OF 2018 (Old no. 3610 of 2018) be stand disposed of. 20. The interim order of stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 21. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial with utmost expedition, keeping in mind that the matter is pending since 2017, and bring the same to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which are strictly confined to the disposal of this revisional application. 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Learned Trial Court immediately for information and swift action. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)