OINAM LUKHOI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.55(08)2009 MI PS registered on the file of Mayang Imphal Police Station under Ss. 212, 121, 121-A and 34 IPC; Sec. 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sec. 25(I-C) of the Arms Act, 1959, in so far as it concerns him.

(2.) Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur, for the respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that while he was travelling towards Mayang Imphal on the fateful day, viz., 14/8/2009, in his Gypsy vehicle bearing Registration No. MN-01W-4594, an unknown person stopped him and asked for a lift to the city. The petitioner stated that he obliged him as a good Samaritan but on the way his vehicle was stopped and they were arrested, leading to registration of the subject FIR on 15/8/2009. The petitioner further stated that, as matters stand, he is alleged to have committed offences under Ss. 19 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1967'). He asserted that the only evidence against him is his own alleged confession statement and the confession statement of his original co-accused, the person who he claimed took a lift from him on that day. The petitioner further asserted that his confession was coerced and obtained under duress and it could not be used against him in view of Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1872'). He claimed that no incriminating material was found either in his vehicle or on his person or recovered at his behest. He asserted that Sec. 19 of the Act of 1967 could not be applied to him as he had never 'harboured' or 'concealed' or 'attempted to harbour or conceal' any person, knowing that such person was a terrorist. He reiterated that he had only given a lift on humanitarian grounds and had no knowledge that the said person had any links with a banned outfit. He further asserted that Sec. 39 of the Act of 1967 has been wrongly applied as none of the ingredients thereof are made out, even prima facie. Lastly, he pointed out that even though more than 11 years had passed since the alleged incident, no charge sheet had been filed till date and contended that continuation of the proceedings against him under the subject FIR is unsustainable in law. It is on these grounds that he sought quashing of the subject FIR against him.