IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court should be cautious in interfering with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, except when convinced beyond any doubt that the FIR does not disclose an offence and that the continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Criminal Petition No.36 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated under FIR Case No.3(4) 2019 of TBL DAM Police Station registered under Section 353/509/34 IPC, non-existent and superseded Section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 131(1)(b)(2) of RP Act, 1951, as the same is unconstitutional and unwarranted and is gross misuse and miscarriage of justice.

2. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant him anticipatory bail in FIR Case No.3(4) 2019 of TBL DAM Police Station.

3. Since the First Information Report involved in these petitions is one and the same, both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.4.2019 at about 12.20 p.m. while the complainant was performing his duty at the Polling Station No.7/40, Nongpok Keithelmanbi Primary School, one unknown person came to him and called him out to meet one MLA who was sitting with his associates at the community hall located nearby the area. As informed, the complainant went to meet the MLA as guided by the person. When the complainant reached there, one person who later identified as K.Meghachandra, MLA of Wangkhem Assembly Constituency criminally intimidated the complainant in the presence of the public without any reason. The MLA even threatened the complainant to put under suspension from his service. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the petitioner insulted the complainant with an intent to humiliate him before the public and the petitioner acted in a disorderly manner so as to interfere with the working of the police personnel deployed at the said Polling Station. Based on the complaint lodged by the Head Constable Gaipuilin, FIR Case No.3(4)2019 was registered by the Thoubal Dam Police Station against the petitioner.

5. Heard Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

Criminal Petition No.36 of 2019:

6. Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 32-Wangkhem Assembly Constituency and belongs to Indian National Congress Party, which is in opposition in the State. He would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the Head Constable K.Gaipuilin of Noney Police Station, who was detailed at the Polling Station No.7/40, Nongpok Keithelmanbi Primary School for Phase-II of Lok Sabha Election, 2019, FIR case No.3(4)2019 was registered against the petitioner under Section 353/506/34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 131 (1) (b) (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner received information that some BJP workers and sympathizers had forcibly obstructed some voters to enter into the Polling Station No.7/40 to cast their votes and that even the authorized polling agent of the Congress had not been allowed to enter into the Polling Station even after starting of the casting of votes. The learned senior counsel submitted that it was also informed that the Congress candidate Oinam Nabakishore Singh, who was present at the said Polling Station, was gheroad and threatened by BJP workers. On 18.4.2019 at 11.25 a.m., the Congress candidate submitted an application for stopping the election and requested re-poll to the Presiding Officer and after that the petitioner left the Polling Station.

8. The learned senior counsel then submitted that when the petitioner reached the Polling Station, he stayed outside the community hall away from the Polling Station and asked the Head Constable on duty to come to him. When he saw that the said Head Constable was not performing his duty, he said to the constable as to