IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the need for a complaint from the public servant concerned or his superior for registering a FIR under Section 188 IPC and interpreted the elements of incitement under Section 505(1)(b) IPC.

ORDER

1. By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, a Doctor by profession, seeks quashing of FIR No.52 (09)2020 APS on the file of Andro Police Station, Imphal East District, Manipur, in so far as he is concerned. This FIR was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 188, 427 and 34 IPC but Section 505(1)(b) IPC was added thereafter.

[2] Heard Mr. L.Sevananda Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Officer-in-Charge, Andro Police Station, respondent No.1; and Mr. Mangilal, learned counsel representing Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, appearing for the Director, Tourism, Government of Manipur, the complainant, respondent No.2 herein.

[3] The complainant addressed letter dated 15.09.2020 to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District, Manipur, stating that social media had reported to the effect that an incident occurred on 15.09.2020 at Santhei Natural Park, Andro, and some people were seen damaging the Inauguration Plaque at the park. He requested that necessary action be taken against the culprits. Thereupon, FIR No.52(09)2020 was registered on the file of Andro Police Station under Sections 147,148, 188, 427 and 34 IPC. The accused were not known and were shown in the FIR as 'Some people'.

[4] However, the Grounds for Remand filed on 17.09.2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East, reflected that a person had been arrested on 16.09.2020 and he disclosed that the petitioner had given a speech on 14.09.2020 at the said park. It was further stated that on 15.09.2020, a meeting was again held near the gate of the park and about 400 to 500 people attended this meeting. The damage to the Inauguration Plaque was caused thereafter. The arrested person is stated to have named some of those involved in the destruction. On the basis of this information, the police authorities sought leave to add Section 505(1)(b) IPC in the FIR and also sought remand of the petitioner to police custody to enable further investigation. However, by her order dated17.09.2020, the learned Magistrate refused to remand the petitioner to police custody and allowed his bail application in Criminal Misc.(B) Case No. 164 of 2020, thereby granting him bail subject to conditions.

[5] Mr. L.Sevananda Sharma, learned counsel, would contend that the very registration of the FIR, in so far as it pertains to an offence under Section 188 IPC, is unsustainable in law. Further, he would argue that there is no material whatsoever to implicate the petitioner in the offences alleged under Sections 188 and 505(1)(b) IPC. He would rely on the observations of the learned Magistrate in the order dated 17.09.2020 and pray for quashing of the FIR in so far as it concerns the petitioner.

[6] The Officer-In-Charge, Andro Police Station, filed an affidavit-in- opposition. Therein, he stated that there was a ban imposed by the competent authority on social gatherings and assembling of crowds due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, therefore, the petitioner ought not to have addressed a meeting at the park in violation of such order. This is the offence alleged against him under Section 188 IPC. He stated that after examining the report in that regard and upon investigation into the vandalism at the park, involving destruction of the Inauguration Plaque, one person was arrested and upon his disclosures, it came to light that the villagers were incited by the petitioner during his speech. He accordingly justified the addition of Section 505(1)(b) IPC in the FIR. He concluded by stating that investigation was still under process and that no grounds were made out to quash the FIR against the petitioner at this stage.

[7] The complainant, respondent No.2 herein, filed a counter-affidavit confirming that the Directorate of Tourism had informed the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District, about what had happened at the park and r