Point of Law: Section 195A Cr. P. C. provides that when any witness or any other person alleges that an offence under Section 195A IPC is committed, then it may file a complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent/informant No. 2. And Mr. D. Das, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 4.6.2022 passed in Sessions Case no. 18/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao and also for quashing the FIR registered as Haflong PS. Case No. 53/2022 u/s 195A IPC.

3. The background fact:

The basic background fact leading to the filing of the present application may be summarized as follows:

I. Respondent No. 2, on 28.4.2007, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge, Umrangsho P.S. inter Alia alleging that when his vehicle which hired by two Dimasa people with one police personnel with arms and boarded the vehicle at Haflong and in the midway one Dimasa person asked to change the direction of the vehicle and thereafter a group of 7/8 boys wearing army dress with arms stopped the vehicle, kidnapped them and taken away the ammunitions of the PSOs. The extremist also took away his vehicle. Based on such FIR USO PS Case No. 22 of 2007 was registered.

II. After completion of the Investigation, the police laid a charge sheet in the aforesaid case and informant/respondent No.2 was shown as one of the witnesses to prove the charges. In the charge sheet, it was also mentioned that the present petitioner/accused in the aforesaid case, may be considered as an approver of the case and a prayer was made for appropriate action. During the investigation, the statement of the present respondent No.2 was recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. He depicted the same story in his statement under 161 Cr.P.C. He further stated that if he sees the two Dimasa persons who came in the vehicle he can recognize them.

III. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the present respondent No. 2 was examined as PW 4 in the proceeding of the Sessions Case No. 18/2008. He was examined on 26.4.2021. During the examination-in-chief, respondent No.2 deposed that he could not identify the extremist as their faces were covered and he could not collect more information due to fear. He further deposed that army personnel detained him in their custody for more than two months. He proved the FIR lodged by him as well as his signature. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not write the FIR and it was written by one police personnel namely, UBC Deba Kanta Laskar, who was posted at Diyungmukh Outpost. During cross-examination, he further deposed that those who hired the vehicle on the date of the incident are not present in the court on that day. He also deposed that he could not identify the person present in the Court on that day and whether they committed the offence on the date of the incident. To a suggestion of the defense, he admitted that he has given his signature on a blank paper. To a pointed query of the Court, respondent 2 deposed that the person who boarded at Haflong with the PSO was open-faced, he did not notice any mask on their faces. To another query of the court, he deposed that the extremist snatched away his car key.

IV. Thereafter, on 04.06.2022, the present respondent No.2 filed a petition being Petition No.620/2022 before the learned Trial Court below to get him re-examined by the court. The ground for the filing of such an application was that the present petitioner accused Sri Miput Rajiyung @ Action Dimasa along with three other unknown persons abducted him and his wife from Haflong Town at gunpoint on 6.4.2022 and he was forcefully brought to Umrangso and the present petitioner directed the respondent No. 2 to make statements before the court as he directed and not to implicate the accused Debolal Gorlosa before the court and accordingly, as per their direction, he deposed before the court. It was further pleaded in the said petition that the present accused threatened and pressurized respondent No.2. It is further pleaded that the depos