C.S. Thanga vs State Of Manipur
2021 Latest Caselaw 125 Mani

KABORAMB                                                                     Page 1 of 19

AM LARSON
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBAM LARSON           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2021.06.21                      AT IMPHAL
12:48:41 +05'30'
                                Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

               1.     C.S. Thanga, aged about 46 years, S/o H. Chongthu of
                      Saikhul, P.S., Saikhul, Kangpokpi District, Manipur.


                                                                       ....... Petitioner/s

                                                  - Versus -


               1.     State of Manipur.

                                                                      .... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y. Ashang, Ld. PP

Date of Hearing : 17.04.2021

Judgment & Order : 17.06.2021.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

[1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 27.9.2017

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East

in Sessions Trial No.6 of 2017, thereby framing charges against the

petitioner.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that by the impugned order

dated 27.9.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Manipur

East though dropped the offences under Section 121/121A IPC, has

framed charges against the petitioner and three others under Section

400/384 IPC without any basis. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

erred in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from the

offences alleged by the prosecution.

[3] Challenging the order impugned, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an advisor to the Kuki

Students' Organization and being interested in bringing a peaceful

environment in the State and the petitioner was contacting various

organizations who have gone underground for bringing them to the

negotiating table and now many of such organizations has signed

suspension of operation with the Government of India and the

Government of Manipur. He would submit that on 7.1.2003, the

petitioner was arrested at Hotel Bheigo, Imphal only on a suspicion

because some persons alleged to be members of Kuki National Front

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

(KNF) were arrested on the same day at the said hotel and the

petitioner was later detained under National Security Act along with

those alleged members of KNF, but the petitioner was released by the

Board as he is not a member of any unlawful organization.

[4] The learned counsel further submitted that the

allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet if taken at their face

value and accepted in entirely, do not constitute any offence or make

out a case against the petitioner. Further, there is no extortion alleged

by the prosecution.

[5] The learned counsel next submitted that the alleged

demand letters were to be delivered to Dr. Chongtham Chandramani

Singh, the then Director, Health Services, Manipur in the last week of

August 2002 while he was at his residence by unknown person at the

time but later on identified as Helkhomang Haokip @ Henry and that a

demand letter was served to Prahlad Sharma, the then General

Secretary, Transport Association and the said Prahlad Sharma stated

in his statement that one of his driver delivered the said demand letter

to him on 25.8.2002 and the same is said to be signed by Henry.

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

[6] The learned counsel then submitted that there is no

allegation that Helkhomang Haokip @ Henry who was alleged to have

signed and delivered demand letters to Dr. Chongtham Chandramani

Singh in the last week of August, 2002 and also to Prahlad Sharma on

25.8.2002 was assisted by the petitioner in any manner and as such for

the alleged act of one of the accused Helkhomang Haokip @ Henry for

having delivered demand letters to the said persons that too in the year

2002 and the arrest made in 2003 in a different incident without

materials, does not incriminate the petitioner for the offence of

extortion. In fact, there is no allegation against the petitioner and the

petitioner was arrested on 7.1.2003 whereas the alleged demand

letters were said to be delivered in the last week of August 2002 which

were signed by accused Henry and which could not be connected by

the prosecution with the petitioner inasmuch as the allegation that

some KNF members have come to extort money in the Imphal Bazar

area.

[7] The learned counsel further submitted that as regards

the offence under Section 400 IPC, there is no allegation that there

exist a gang of dacoits and that there is no allegation that KNF

organization is a gang of the dacoits and there is also no allegation that

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

KNF if habitually committing dacoity. He would submit that there is no

allegation that an offence of robbery was on some occasion or

occasions committed by five or more members of KNF and as such

when there is no allegation of the existence of a gang of dacoits, the

petitioner cannot obviously be a member of dacoits, Section 400 IPC

cannot be invoked to punish him for an offence of belonging to a gang

of dacoits. Since the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the

gang of dacoits, there is no question of the prosecution having the

capacity to prove the habitual commission of dacoity by such gang of

dacoits, which does not exist. Since the allegations made in the charge

sheet does not make out any offence under Section 384/400 IPC, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in framing the charges against

the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

[8] Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State submitted that FIR 3(1)2003 was registered on

the basis of the written report lodged by one Ch. Ananda Singh, Sub

Inspector of Police, Imphal West Commando on 7.1.2003 at about 3.00

pm wherein it was stated that on receipt of a specific reliable source

about the movement of some Kuki National Front, an underground

organization by taking shelter at Hotel Avenue in Room No.104 for the

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

purpose of extorting money from general public, business and

Government officer in Imphal areas, he along with the police party

rushed to the said Hotel and called the occupant of the said Room

No.104 for identification. The said occupant identified himself as

Thangtinlal @ Lalboy @ Thangboy @ Rehman of Tuibong village in

Churachandpur District, Manipur. On body search, two demand letters

were recovered from his pocket which were seized by following

formalities.

[9] The Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that

on further interrogation, Thangtinlal disclosed himself as the Home

Secretary of KNF and he and the Joint Finance Secretary of his

organization along with other associate members are coming to Imphal

for extorting money by way of serving demand letters. During the

course of further interrogation, the said accused person disclosed the

whereabouts of his associates and based on the disclosure, four

persons including the petitioner were arrested. According to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is one of the active member

of KNF and that he and the other accused were arrested in Imphal in

the course of attempting to extort money from the public, businessmen

and Government department by serving demand letters under the letter

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

head of KNF and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly

framed charges against the petitioner and other accused and there is

no illegality in the order impugned.

[10] This Court considered the submissions raised by both

the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

[11] The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge primarily on the ground that there is

no allegation that the accused Helkhomang Haokip who was alleged to

have signed and delivered the demand letters to one Dr. Chongtham

Chandramani Singh and also Pradhlad Sharma was assisted by the

petitioner in any manner and as such for the alleged act of one of the

accused for having delivered demand letters to the said persons, does

not incriminate the petitioner for the offence of extortion. It is also

alleged that there is no allegation against the petitioner, however, he

was arrested on 7.1.2003 on the allegation that some KNF members

and others have come to extort money in the Imphal Bazar area. Thus,

according to the petitioner, the ingredients of the offence of extortion

are not made out in the charge sheet in respect of the petitioner in view

of the simple fact that the said delivery of demand letters were said to

be made and signed by the accused Helkhomang and there is no any

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

material to show that the petitioner in any manner assisted the said

accused person. As far as the offence of dacoity is concerned, it is the

say of the petitioner that there is no any allegation that KNF

organization is a gang of dacoits and there is also no allegation that

KNF is habitually committing dacoity. When is no allegation of the

existence of a gang of dacoits, the petitioner cannot be a member of

dacoits and further the petitioner is not a member of any gang of

dacoits.

[12] The case of the prosecution is that on 7.1.2003 at 3.00

pm, the Sub Inspector of Police of CDO/IW lodged a written report to

the Officer-in-Charge of City Police Station that on receipt of a reliable

information that some underground elements of Kuki National Front are

taking shelter in Hotel Avenue, Room No.104, Gandhi Avenue in order

to extort money from general public particularly businessmen of Imphal

Bazar area with an ulterior motive to wage war against the Indian

Government. Hence, the Sub Inspector Police and his police party

rushed to Hotel Avenue and went upto Room No.104 and called the

occupant for verification. On preliminary verification, the occupant

identified himself as Thangtinlal @ Lalboy @ Thangboi @ Rehman of

Tuibong, Churachandpur and presently holding Home Secretary of

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

KNF. He further stated that he along with Joint Finance Secretary of

KNF and some other members are coming to Bazar area for extorting

money by distributing demand letters. On further search of his body,

two demand letters were found from his pocket and seized the same by

observing formalities and arrested the accused Thangtinlal and handed

over to City Police Station for taking necessary legal action.

[13] By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC), framed charges against the petitioner and three accused

under Section 384/400 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

framed the following specific charges against the petitioner:

"That you, CS Thanga on or about the 02:15 am on 7 th January 2003 being the member of Kuki National Front (KNF) which is a gang organization was arrested by the police with other associates for putting Govt. Officials and General pulic including General Secretary, Transport Association in fear in order to the committing of extortion and that you thereby committed offences punishable under Section 384 of the IPC, and within the cognizance of this Court.

That you, CS Thanga on or about the 02:15 am on 7 th January 2003 being the member of Kuki National Front (KNF) a gang of persons associated for a purpose of habitually committing dacoity, and thereby committed offence punishable

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

under Section 400 of the IPC, and within the cognizance of this Court."

[14] Coming to the merits of the matter, the learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an advisor to the

Kuki Students' Organization and being interested in bringing a peaceful

environment in the State and in fact, the petitioner was issued with

identify card by the President of Kuki Students' Organization and also

another identity card was being issued by Sunil Mohan, S.O. to IGP,

CRPF, Imphal. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the

allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet and the statements

of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not constitute any

offence or make out a case against the petitioner.

[15] The material produced by the prosecution would disclose

that on interrogation of the accused Thangtinlal Haokip, it is revealed

that he along with the Joint Secretary of KNF and some members come

with a view to extort money by distributing demand letters. On further

interrogation of the accused Thangtinlal Haokip, he disclosed the

whereabouts of his associates and based on the information, four co-

accused, including the petitioner were arrested by the City Police.

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

[16] It is the case of the prosecution that on the disclosure of

accused Thangtinlal Haokip, visited the house of Prahlad Sharma at

Thangal Bazar and at the instance of the accused and on production of

Prahlad Sharma one yellowish coloured envelope addressed to the

General Secretary Transporters Association, Manipur and one demand

letter having the symbol of KNF office of the Finance Department, KNF,

Government of Kukiland addressed to the General Secretary Transport

Association signed by Henry Kuki, Joint Secretary, Finance,

Government of Kukiland for Rs.1 lakh dated 24.8.2002 were seized.

The police also seized one identity card in the name of accused

Helkhomang Haokip, Assitant Teacher, Majuron Kuki School,

Churachandpur issued by the Chief Executive Officer, District Council,

Churachandpur District and another card in the name of the petitioner

CS Thanga being identified as signed by Sunil Moha, SO to IGP,

CRPF, Imphal dated 31.12.2002 and another identity card in the name

of CS Dimngel of Saikul issued by the President Kuki Students'

Organization, General Headquarters, Tuibong dated 19.6.2000.

[17] It is also the case of the prosecution that during the

further course of investigation on the disclosure of the accused

Helkhomang Haokip visited the office of the Director Health Services,

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

Manipur and at the instance and pointing of the accused and on

production by Dr. Ch. Chandramani Singh, one yellowish coloured

envelope addressed to the Medical Director, Health Services, Manipur

and one demand letter having the symbol of KNF in a letter head of

KNF, Government of Kukiland addressed to the Medical (Health)

Lamphel, Imphal for Rs.15 lakh signed by Henry Kuki, Joint Secretary

Finance, Government of Kukiland dated 24.8.2002 was seized. Thus, it

is clear that the petitioner and other accused persons are members of

KNF and KNF is an organization set up with the objective to create a

separate State for Kuki's and the said organization indulges in violent

and subversive activities, thereby affecting adversely the law and order

in the State and to fulfill its objective, the members of KNF resorted to

illegal fund collection by serving demand letters and threatening the

common people, the Government officials and also businessmen.

[18] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that though the Additional Sessions Judge trying a case has

jurisdiction to discharge the petitioner at any stage of the trial, if he

considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the

petitioner cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or

Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

him when no offence has been made out against him and still why must

he undergo the agony of a criminal trial. In support, the learned counsel

relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Pepsi Foods Limited and another v.Special Judicial Magistrate and

others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and G. Sugar Suri and another v. State of

UP and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636.

[19] From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the High Court can exercise its

power of judicial review in criminal matters. Under Article 227, the

power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of

administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. Article 227 confers

vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of

law by the inferior Courts and to see that the stream of administration of

justice remains clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. have no limits, but more the power, more due care and

caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the

exercise of power could be under Article 227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., it

may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of

the Constitution. Here, in the case on hand, since serious allegations

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

have been levelled against the petitioner and other accused and since

they being the members of KNF, this Court is not inclined to entertain

the petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order.

[20] In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others,

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered when

can the criminal proceedings be quashed in exercise of powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution. In paragraph

102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant

provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of

law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have

extracted and reproduced above, we given the following

categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power

could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not

be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and

sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein

such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) or the Code. (3) Whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

[21] In the instant case, the allegations made in the first information

report do prima facie constitute the offence or make out a case against the

accused, including the petitioner. That apart, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, upon perusing the materials available on record, including

the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., framed the charges

against the accused.

[22] It is true that the wholesome power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the

conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of

the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the

proceeding ought to be quashed. Here, it is a case of serious allegation

against the petitioner and others, who are members of KNF, which is stated

to be habitually committing dacoits.

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

[23] Insofar as the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well settled that while exercising

the powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court does not function

as the Court of appeal or revision. The inherent power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to

prevent abuse of process of the Court and to otherwise secure the ends of

justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision

should not be executed to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

[24] In the present case, there are materials to show the

involvement of the petitioner and other accused into the crime and therefore,

allowing to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would

not amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, it cannot be

construed that the continuance of the instant criminal proceedings against

the petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court.

[25] Coming to the provision of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., it provides

that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents

submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and

the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused

and record his reasons for so doing.

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

[26] While framing charges impugned, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, discussed the provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and

declined the prayer of the accused for discharge. This Court finds that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly declined to discharge the

accused from the criminal proceedings taking note of the involvement of the

petitioner and other accused into the crime.

[27] The Hon'ble Supreme Court does not approve a roving inquiry

at the stage of framing charge. In the instant case, the charges are

supported by the statements of prosecution witnesses and the material

objects. Therefore, all these cannot be analyzed by the trial Court at the time

of appreciating the discharge pleaded by the accused. On the contrary, it is

a case for detailed examination by the trial Court.

[28] It is settled that power to quash proceedings at the initial stage

has to be exercised exdebito justitiae. Such power can be exercised where a

criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and have been

instituted maliciously with ulterior motive. This inherent power ought not to

be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

[29] In the present case, prima facie, there are materials to connect

the petitioner with the KNF organization and according to the prosecution,

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017

the said organization is indulging in violent and subversive activities thereby

affecting adversely the law and order in the State. Since the offence of

robbery and gang dacoits alleged against the accused, including the

petitioner, who are members of KNF, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

was right in framing charges against the petitioner and that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge only after perusing the materials available on

record, including the 161 statements of the prosecution witnesses, has

framed the charges. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned

order framing charges against the petitioner. Only upon finding reasonable

grounds for framing charges under Sections 384/400 IPC, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner and others.

There is no merit in the instant petition and therefore, the same is liable to

be dismissed.

[30] In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

[31] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the

parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.

JUDGE FR/NFR

-Larson

Criminal Petition No.38 of 2017