Khupkholen Haokip vs State Of Manipur And Ors

[1] This is a petition praying for setting aside quashing the impugned FIR No.4 (05) 2019 CKG PS u/s 340/347/390/441 & 34 IPC, 18 ND & PS Act

and 28 Arms Act (Annexure C/1). The said FIR was registered against 11 accused persons including the petitioner and other unknown persons on the

false allegation made by the Respondent No.4.

[2] The respondent No.4 filed a complaint petition being Criminal (C) Case No.7 of 2019 before the Learned CJM, Chandel against the petitioner and

other accused persons mentioned in the FIR. The Petitioner is a member of the Autonomous District Council from 23-Sajik Tampak Constituency,

Chandel and having the domicile of the state of Manipur. As such, petitioner is entitled to all the privileges, rights and protections guaranteed by the

Constitution of India and the laws and acts for the time being in force. The claim made by the respondent No.4 is civil in nature as the ownership of

the said land as claim by the respondent No.4 as legal heir on the demise of his father will be strongly objected by the petitioner’s father as at no

point of time Sonjakhup had never sold any land to late Holkhomang Haokip in the year 1992. The power of attorney holder, namely Lunkhothang

Haokip, filed a complaint at the SDO/SDM Chakpikarong dated 11.01.2019 for illegal occupation of land and the cultivation and as such the

SDO/SDM passed an order dated 14.02.2019 under section 144 Cr.PC. The power of attorney holder filed another complaint dated 25.02.2019 for

disobedience of the SDO/SDM order dated 14.02.2019 to the Officer-in-Charge, Chakpikarong police station as well as to the SDO/SDM. The

Chakpikarong police personnel arrested the father of the petitioner, namely Paolun Haokip in connection with the above referred FIR case on

13.06.2019 and produced before the Learned CJM, Chandel on 14.06.2019 and was remanded to police custody till 17.06.2019.

[3] During the ethnic clash the kukis and nagas (1993) one Ngulkhomang Haokip along with some 5/6 persons approached the accused persons and

his father to allow him to settle in his village area. Paolun and his father allowed them to settle in their village area with a condition that they can stay

in the said portion of their village and they can utilize the land as per their wish however, they cannot sell or mortgage the said area which has been

allotted to them by the chief of the village i.e. they have been given permissive possession by the chief of the Longja village. Thus, Ngulkhomang

Haokip had executed an agreement deed dated 21.12.1993 by taking customary oath that in the future if he is unable to settle in Kholmunlen village he

shall willfully hand back the entire land of the village to Shri Paolun Haokip.

[4] Nguikhomang Haokip had executed another agreement deed dated 08.01.2019 wherein he had clearly stated that as per the agreement between

himself and the land owner for returning the entire Village land of Kholmunlen village into the hands of the owner in case of non residing In the said

village and fulfilling the said condition of agreement, Ngulkhomang Haokip had returned the said entire village land of Kholmunlen Village to the owner

i.e. Paolun Haokip.

[5] As per the facts narrated by the respondent No.4 it has been stated that on 07.01.2019, the above named accused persons and their agents came

to the village of the complainant and committed the alleged crime by clearing the jungle and have constructed many houses inside the boundary of

Kholmunlen village and cultivated poppy plants. At the same time it has also been stated that the power of attorney holder had made a complaint to

the SDO/SDM Chakpikarong on 11.01.2019 for the illegal occupation of the land and the cultivation. However late Holkhomang Haokip was never a

Chief of any village and as such after acquiring so much power as a Minister, he must have tried to project himself as a Chief of some village by

forging documents as it is submitted that Sonjakhup Haokip had never sold his land to Holkhomang Haokip at any point of time and if any such sale

deed exist then it must be a forged document. Holkhomang Haokip or the said power of attorney holder/complainant had never resided in the said

village as claimed by them, it might have only existed in the official documents as Holkhomang Haokip being a Minister of the State was well aware of

the importance of documentation in the Government Record.

[6] As the police personnel had arrested the father of the petitioner who had been named in the FIR, when father of the petitioner on his way to the

office of the SDO- Chakpikarong to get the schemes for the Longja villages. Paolun’s father who is the chief of Longja village being bed ridden,

Paolun being the heir to the Chleftainship of Langja village has to take care for the welfare of the Longja villagers. The petitioner also apprehends that

can be arrested at any point of time by the police personnel from office or any public place as the petitioner being a member of the Autonomous

District Councll Is a public figure. Thus, on 01.07.2019, the petitioner flled an Antlclpatory Ball belng Crlmlnal MIs(AB) No. 73 of 2019 before the

Sessions Judge, Imphal West. However, the Ld. Court was pleased to reject the application stating that from the copy of the FIR, it is seen that

section 18 of ND & PS is charged against the petitioner, hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Therefore

the Petitioner filed this Quash application.

[7] The accused persons including the petitioner are habitual offenders and as such a proof of copy of OE and HR lodged to the QC. Chakpikarong on

15.07.2019 against accused persons including the petitioner for the commission of offences cognizable and non bailable. It is also pertinent to mention

that the said offences were committed on 17.07.2019 during the time the Petitioner was enjoying Interim Anticipatory Bail was allowed by this

Hon’ble High Court in A.B.No.22 of 2019.

[8] That the case is at the stage of investigation and custody Interrogation of the petitioner/accused would be required to indentify co-accused persons

and to recover the Local made guns, Swords, Trucks (Shaktimans) etc.

[9] The said offences were committed by the petitioner and his co-accused persons within the village of the respondent No.4 i.e. Kholmunlen Village,

Chandel District which he inherited including the Chiefship from his father namely (L) Shri Holkhomang Haokip who till the time of his death was the

Chief and owner of the said village. The Investigating Officer of the case during Investigation has confirmed the fact that the village land was sold to

the father of the respondent No.4 which was registered and has been verified to be true from the records of the SDO Chakpikarong.

[10] The Investigating Officer also disclosed that after the death of the father of the respondent No.4 the accused started occupying the village after

clearing the jungles and even started building huts.

[11] The father of the present complainant Holkhomang Haokip purchased them and of Longyang village of Longyang village measuring 15 kms from

North to South and from 10 Kms. From East to West from Sonjakhup Haokip, chief of Longja village by way of a registered Sale deed bearing No.6

of 1992 which was registered at the office of Sub Registrar Chakpikarong. Thereafter the said village was recognized as spate village with

holkhomang haokip as the Chief of the village vide Government Notification dated 7th March 1997 passed by the Secretary (Hills) Government of

Manipur. The said complaint application was forwarded by the Learned CJM/Chandel to the Chjakpikarong Police Station for investigation.

Accordingly, the same was treated as O.E. of the case and the present FIR case was registered and investigated into.

[12] Kimthang a resident of Kananphai village and unknown other persons came to Kholmulen village led by main accused Paokholun Haokip with

local /country made guns, swords, axes etc by Shaktiman trucks and forcibly confined the villages of Kholmunlen village and threatened them not to

come out of their houses if they don’t want to die. Thereafter the accused persons started cutting the timbers logs and transported the timbers to

Longja village without the permission of the Kholmunlen village chief or the power of attorney holder. Thereafter, the accused persons cleared the

Jungles belonging to the complainant village and also constructed many houses inside the boundary of Kholmunlen village and also cultivating poppy

plants inside the said jungle.

[13] The present FIR was registered and investigated into on the basis of the direction given by the Learned CJM/Chandel. During the course of

investigation, the investigating authority could gathered materials evidences of coming for halting this prosecution and the contents of the counter

affidavit. It is normally believed, that tails do not wag without the heads. But there we have a case where the subordinate police officers have told

their superiors that they would not either investigate the case or even for registration of a crime, they have to be reminded over and over again, by the

highest police chief of the District concerned. This attitude of the subordinates, if had been put an end to, even at the budding stage, melancholy

experienced all round by everyone concerned in this petition, would not at all have surfaced. The attitude of the subordinates, further pinpoints, the

lack of effective control, supervision and inability to lead, by the higher hierarchy of officers, the net result being a farewell to 'devotion for duty'. In

the decision reported in Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 69 )it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the investigator

did not take all necessary precautions which would be taken to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of his evidence or its bias jurisdiction as to

genuine. In such circumstances it was held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The duties and Procedures conferred by the statute

on the police and they shall be carried out during investigation as they are statutory duties. The sublime idea behind formulating steps for conducting

investigation is to enable the statutory authority to independently carry out the investigation without being influenced by any of the interested parties.

Investigation must not only be fair but impartial and the conclusion reached by them should be unbiased. It is clear from the above decision that there

is a duty cast on the investigating officer to collect all necessary evidence to place it before court so as to enable the court to find out as to how the

incident occurred, who were all responsible for the commission of the offence, nature of offence committed etc., delay of more than 8 years in

investigation may not be a ground for acquittal, but unfair or tainted investigation cannot be treated as a fair investigation and that benefit must be

given to the accused. The seizure of computer parts against the Petitioner was not even relied by the Respondent in their objection of having

committed illegal acts. Therefore there are no prima facie materials available against the Petitioner in respect of the FIR registered against him.

offences u/s 340,347,390,441 IPC , Sec. 28 Arms Act. In other words, prima facie has been made out against the accused persons. Hence, it is denied

that the Investigating Authorities had acted arbitrarily without cogent material and also denied the allegations that the Investigating Authority failed to

follow the provisions of Cr.P.C.

[14] The accused was remanded to police custody of 4 days by the Learned CJM, Chandel till 17.06.2019. Therefore, under our Criminal law,

Social/official status of accused person how high it may be, has no relevancy for quashing Criminal Proceedings.

[15] It was also revealed during the course of investigation of the case, that the accused person and his co-accused persons violated the Sec.144

Cr.P.C. Prohibitory Order passed by SDO/SDM Chakpikarong by trespassing the land without the consent of the Public Servant and also the actual

owner of the Khulmunlen village which attracts Section 188 IPC for disobedience to order duly promulgated by Public Servant.

[16] However as regards to poppy cultivation there are no traces of cultivation as it is off season. Further the said arms which were allegedly used by

the main accused and co-accused persons in threatening the Kholmunlen villages could not be traces as of now. Another FIR No.8(7) 2019 CKG-Ps

u/s 365/326/506/34 IPC & 25(1-c) A Act had been lodged at Chakpikarong P.S. by Smt. Ngaijahat Haokip, W/o Zangkholun Haokip of Aishi village

on 18.07.2019 against Khupkholen Haokip (main accused and others co-accused in FIR No.04(05)2019 CKG-PS).Khupkholen Haokip (accused)

happened to be the 5/0 Paokholun Haokip (who is the main accused and others in HR No.04(05)2019 CKG-PS).

[17] I have carefully examined the contentions advanced by either counsel and meticulously scrutinized the averments made by the petitioner in his

petition for halting this prosecution and the contents of the counter affidavit.

[18] It is normally believed, that tails do not wag without the heads. But there we have a case where the subordinate police officers have told their

superiors that they would not either investigate the case or even for registration of a crime, they have to be reminded over and over again, by the

highest police chief of the District concerned. This attitude of the subordinates, if had been put an end to, even at the budding stage, melancholy

experienced all round by everyone concerned in this petition, would not at all have surfaced. The attitude of the subordinates, further pinpoints, the

lack of effective control, supervision and inability to lead, by the higher hierarchy of officers, the net result being a farewell to 'devotion for duty'.

[19] In the decision reported in Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 69) it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the

investigator did not take all necessary precautions which would be taken to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of his evidence or its bias jurisdiction

as to genuine. In such circumstances it was held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

[20] The duties and Procedures conferred by the statute on the police and they shall be carried out during investigation as they are statutory duties.

The sublime idea behind formulating steps for conducting investigation is to enable the statutory authority to independently carry out the investigation

without being influenced by any of the interested parties. Investigation must not only be fair but impartial and the conclusion reached by them should

be unbiased. It is clear from the above decision that there is a duty cast on the investigating officer to collect all necessary evidence to place it before

court so as to enable the court to find out as to how the incident occurred, who were all responsible for the commission of the offence, nature of

offence committed etc., Delay of more than 8 years in investigation may not be a ground for acquittal, but unfair or tainted investigation cannot be

treated as a fair investigation and that benefit must be given to the accused. The seizure of computer parts against the Petitioner was not even relied

by the Respondent in their objection of having committed illegal acts. Therefore there are no prima facie materials available against the Petitioner in

respect of the FIR registered against him. In the decisions cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court highlighted the principle laid down in a landmark case

in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Bhajan Lai & Ors (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 )formulating as many as seven category of cases by way of illustration,

wherein the extraordinary could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

[21] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions held that the power possessed by the High Court is undoubtedly very wide, but it has to be exercised in

appropriate cases to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist.

[22] In Vakil Prasad Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ultimately held as hereunder:

..... The prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning a

callous and inordinate delay of more than two decades in investigations and the trial. The said delay cannot, in any way, be said to be

arising from any default on the part of the appellant. Thus, on facts in hand, in our opinion, the stated delay clearly violates the

constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial underArticIe Zlof the Constitution. We feel that under these circumstances,

further continuance of criminal proceedings, pending against the appellant in court of Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, is unwarranted and

despite the fact that allegations against him are quite serious, they deserve to be quashed.

[23] This Court is of the considered view that the prolonged investigation by the respondent could have very well caused extreme mental stress and

strain to the petitioner. The sword of Damocles is hanging perilously over his head. The entire allegations alleged in the FIR is purely civil in nature.

The impugned FIR No.4 (05) 2019 CKG PS u/s 340/347/390/441 & 34 IPC, 18 ND & PS Act and 28 Arms Act against 11 accused persons including

the petitioner and other unknown persons do not constitute the ingredients to invoke the offences as alleged in the FIR. Therefore, the FIR is liable to

be quashed.

[24] Accordingly,

a) this Cril. Petition is allowed.

b) FIR No. 4(05)2019 CKG PS is quashed in respect of the petitioner.