IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations in an FIR must disclose a cognizable offence; mere civil disputes cannot be criminalized without clear evidence of criminal intent.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned APP appearing for the State; and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. By filing this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 03.08.2022, registered as Yingkiong Police Station Case No. 29/2022, under sections 120B/153A/295A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of this criminal petition, the competent authority, i.e. the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by a letter dated 27.12.2023, granted prosecution sanction only in respect of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Ms. Tendy Lamo, and not against the petitioner no. 2, namely, Shri Michung Khamba. Consequently, the I.O. of Yingkiong P.S. Case No. 29/2022 had forwarded a charge-sheet bearing no. 1/2024, dated 08.02.2024, against the petitioner no. 1 and two others, but not against the petitioner no.2. This fact is admitted by the learned APP.

4. By referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2023) 8 SCC 734, it is submitted that in a case where frivolous and vexatious proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court need not restrict itself only to the “stage” of a case, but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation or registration of the case as well as materials collected in course of investigation. On the strength of the said decision, it is submitted that the place where the incident took place is claimed by the petitioners as their community land. It is submitted that the area is a mountainous area and till date, no person has been granted Land Possession Certification (“LPC” for short). The petitioners admit having constructed a Monastery at a particular site claiming it to be a site of religious importance for them where they had also installed a statue of Lord Buddha, popularly known as Avaloketeshvara (The Buddha of Compassion).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a notice dated 05.09.2021, issued by Gaonbura of 8 (eight) villages in the adjoining area, collectively known as Simong Village to project that the said Gaonburas had asked the addressee, i.e. Shri Michung Khamba, petitioner no.2, as President of Cheme Yangchang Welfare Society, Tuting, to remove all erected structures from Eko Dombing area by 30.09.2021 and the petitioner no.2 was put to notice that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the notice, the structure will be removed by the people of Simong community and that apart, necessary action shall be initiated against him as deem fit and proper.

6. To give the background of the inter-se dispute between two communities, it is also submitted that on 04.10.2021, the Deputy Commissioner of Upper Siang District declared ownership of the land in favour of Simong community and accordingly, the said order was put to challenge by filing WP(C) 374(AP)/2021 and this Court by order dated 09.06.2022, on the jurisdictional point, held that the Deputy Commissioner was not vested with the power and jurisdiction to make any finding on the title of the land and accordingly, the order dated 04.10.2021 was set aside by giving liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute.

7. In the meanwhile, a Kebang decision was made in favour of the Simong community, which the learned counsel for the petitioner claims to be an ex parte decision, against which an appeal has been preferred and it is submitted that the said appeal is pending before the competent Civil Court.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in between 16th to 24th October, 2021, the Monastery and structures bui