Prolonged delays and lack of sufficient evidence in criminal proceedings lead to quashing of charges, as continued prosecution serves no justice, particularly with hostile witnesses and absent key testimonies.

JUDGMENT

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent.

2. The instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the accused/petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him in connection with G. R. Case No. 133/2006, under Section 384/511 of the IPC, corresponding to ITA P. S. Case No. 127/2006.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2006, there was an election for the post of Secretary/President of the Itanagar Market Welfare Society. In that election, one Shri Yumlam Achung, Shri Baman Tagik and the accused/petitioner had submitted their candidatures for the post of Secretary of the aforesaid society. During the aforesaid election process, an FIR dated 19.07.2006 was lodged by the informant(Late Anil Chandra Kar, since deceased) against the accused/petitioner, alleging that the accused/petitioner, equipped with small arms, came to him last 20 days back and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in order to purchase petrol and out of fear, the informant had given the said amount and again on 19.07.2006, at around 10.30 am, the accused/petitioner came to his shop and demanded Rs. 50,000/- in favour of NSCN within 23.07.2006. It was alleged that the informant was threatened by the accused/petitioner that in case, he failed to pay the aforesaid amount then, the informant had to face dire consequences. The informant did not pay the amount as demanded by the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, ITA P.S. Case No. 127/2006, under Sections 384/506 of the IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner. The accused/petitioner came to know about the aforesaid FIR lodged against him for extortion of money and on enquiry, it came to light that three local boys went to the informant and forcefully took the signature of the informant in a paper without explaining the contents of the document. Accordingly, after investigation, a Charge-sheet was filed on 06.03.2008, under Sections 201/384/506 of the IPC, read with Section 25(B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against the accused/petitioner. It is seen from the aforesaid Charge-sheet that as many as 8 (eight) persons had been named in the Charge-sheet to be examined by the prosecution for establishing of the case against the accused/petitioner.

4. It is seen from the records that though the Charge-sheet was filed on 06.03.2008, for reasons best known, the proceeding of the trial started only on 02.06.2022 by framing of the charge against the accused/petitioner, under Sections 384/511 of the IPC. Due to non-availability of the prosecution sanction, under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, the charge against the accused/petitioner under the Arms Act, could not be framed.

5. The records of the case are received from the Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, District-Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh, reveal that till date only PW-1 (Late Anil Chandra Kar, the informant), who was declared as hostile witness and PW-2, Shri Tilak Bahadur Biswakarma were examined.

6. It is seen from the records that the PWs, Muna Kumar Sha and Modan Biswas were dropped from the list of PWs, as the summons issued to them returned unserved from their Itanagar address, as they left the Itanagar address without leaving any information about their whereabouts. The summons to the other PWs are yet to be served.

7. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel appearing for the accu