IMPORTANT POINT
Court ought not to pass any sort of order which may restrict power of police in maintaining law and order of State, except for protecting basic right of a citizen.

JUDGMENT

A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Albert Keisham, Advocate; and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP for the State.

2. The petitioner herein approached this Court by an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is stated that the petitioner is presently running a business of mobile food truck and is a family man taking care of his old aged parents, wife and two minor sons, and he is the only bread earner of the family and his wife is helping him in the food truck business. The petitioner was arrested on 21.04.2012 in connection with F.I.R No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 UA(P) Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, released him on bail on 30.04.2012. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 arbitrarily arrested the petitioner without any material only on the ground that he was carrying Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) with him. It is further stated that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and there is no progress in the investigation since his arrest 10 years ago. It is stated that the petitioner has been picked up from his residence on every Independence Day and Republic Day i.e. 15th August and 26th January every year by the police and took photographs in full public view and hence, his prestige and reputation has been tarnished in the society. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner was a member of a banned militant outfit PLA/RPF. Since there is no progress in the investigation for more than 10 years, it is prayed that name of the petitioner may be quashed or deleted from the FIR or direct the respondents to file charge sheet within a time frame. The relevant portion of the prayer is reproduced below:—

“(iii) to quash/delete the name of the petitioner from the impugned FIR No. 208(04) 2012 IPS u/s 17/20 UA(P) Act (Annexure Q/2); or to direct the respondents to file charge sheet against the petitioner within a time frame;”

3. The petitioner also filed an application being MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 27 of 2022 inter alia praying that during the pendency of Cril.Petn. No. 26 of 2022, the State respondents may be directed not to pick up the petitioner and wrongfully detain him in custody in the guise of F.I.R No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 UA(P) Act on the ground that such routine detention of the petitioner on the eve of 26th January and 15th August every year and also during the visit of high dignitaries, violates his right of live with dignity and his right of privacy.

4. The State respondents submits that the petitioner was arrested for being a member of the illegal unlawful band outfit PLA/RPF and from his possession, Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) was recovered in cash from his possession. He used to collect money from various departments and businessman and transferred the same to the organization as party fund after retaining his percentage. As the State of Manipur is an insurgency prone State, there has to be strict vigilance and surveillance over the movement of cadres or members of outlawed organizations, especially on the occasions of Independence Day and Republic Day. Accordingly, the petitioner being a bail-out member of PLA/RPF, the police makes some queries about his life after releasing him on bail and states that he was never arrested or detained. It is also stated that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the FIR. It is stated that the petitioner ought to approach the concerned Special Court under the provisions of Cr.P.C. for calling status of investigation and expediting the same, instead of approaching this Court for quashing FIR. It is also clarified that the investigation took a long time as associates of the petitioner are yet to be arrested and necessary steps will be taken up to complete the investigation as soon as possible.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to the