Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 47 (MAN)

N. G. Gambhir Singh v. State of Manipur

2018-09-14

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
ORDER : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; and Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned P.P. for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs. “d. Quash/Set aside FIR Case No. 256 (11) 015 TBL-P.S. U/s 454/461/380/34 IPC in respect of Petitioner No. 1 & 2; e. Quash the proceedings led in pursuance of the registration of FIR Case No. 256 (11) 015 TBL-P.S., U/s. 454/461/380/34 IPC. f. Or Direct the respondents to submit the Charge Sheet at the within a month.” 3. The accused/petitioners have been called for enquiry by the Jurisdictional police officer in relation with FIR No. 256(11)015 TBL- P.S. U/s 454/461/380/34 IPC dated 4.11.2015 filed by the Officer-in-charge, Thoubal Police in respect of a complaint filed Khumanthem Noren Singh dated 4.11.2015. The case of the complainant is that when he along with the family members went to his brick field [KNS] located at Wangjing Sabal Leikai, the house was closed, but when they came back at around 5:30 p.m., they found the room lock was broken, and the door of the two iron godrej safe was broken and a sum of Rs. 23,00,00/- (Twenty Three Lakhs only) out of Rs. 24,60,000/- (Twenty four lakhs sixty thousand only) was stolen away by unknown person. 4. The FIR No. 256(11)015 TBL-P.S. U/s 454/461/380/34 IPC dated 04.11.2015 was instituted, and in the course of investigation, it appears that the petitioners were interrogated by the police and later on they were arrested and taken to the judicial custody. They moved a bail application which was allowed by Jurisdictional Court and presently, the petitioners are on bail and they seek the above stated reliefs to clear themselves of the black-mark that has been painted on them by the complainant in a false case of theft. 5. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pleads that the entire case of the complainant was false, fictitious, concocted, cooked up, and there is absolutely no basis for the claim that he has lost 23,00,00/- (Twenty Three Lakhs only). It is also further pleaded by the petitioners that it is a self serving complaint, there is no source for the alleged money and the complaint was due to personal vendetta and vindictiveness. It is also further pleaded by the petitioners that it is a self serving complaint, there is no source for the alleged money and the complaint was due to personal vendetta and vindictiveness. He pleads that if the investigation is completed at an early date, it will reveal that the entire case of the complainant is false, fictitious and done with the malafide intention. The police officer can take a decision as to whether there is a case to proceed further in the matter or drop the complaint as a mistake of fact. If the police officer has a concrete material, then, he should have filed a charge sheet so that the petitioners will be able to defend the case and vindicate that they have been wronged by the complainant. 6. Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned P.P., states that the investigation is almost over, and on instruction, he states that it is a matter of time that the officer will file the charge sheet if there is a case made out, or he may drop the proceeding if there is no prima facie material to proceed further. 7. In this view of the matter, taking note of the grievances of the petitioners, it is appropriate to direct the investigating officer, Officer-in-charge of Thoubal Police Station to conclude the enquiry and take a decision either way. No time limit can be fixed in cases at the stage of investigation, nevertheless, the officer shall try to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from today. 8. The petition stands disposed of as above.