Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 407 (GAU)

Budha Teron v. State Of Nagaland

2020-03-18

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under section 482 Cr.PC , 1973 praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner before the learned CJM, Dimapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.25/2017. 2. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Nagaland and Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts which led to the registration of the complaint case and leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 22/11/2017 and the filing of this application are as follows:- 3. On 22/11/2017, the learned CJM Dimapur received a complaint filed by the private respondent alleging that the applicant, on different dates, by signing acknowledgment receipts had taken a total sum of Rs.56,02,964/- with a promise that he would share the profits earned from different contract works under NLCPR projects which were to be undertaken but neither the amount taken from him were returned nor the profits earned from the contract works were ever shared with him. The learned CJM, Dimapur examined the complainant (private respondent herein) and thereafter took cognizance and issued summon to the applicant (accused in the complaint case). The order dated 22/11/2017 passed by the CJM Dimapur, reads as follows:- 'EXTRACT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY SHRI AJONGBA IMCHEN, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND IN CONNECTION WITH C.R.25/2017 Shri Hokugha K. Achumi @ H.K. Achumi ..Complainant. -versus- Er. Budha Teron Accused. Dated:22/11/17 ORDER Received a criminal complaint U/S 200 Cr.PC from Shri Hokugha K. Achumi against Er. Budha Teron R/O Ward,5 District Social Welfare, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam through the learned Counsel Shri Hetoka, Advocate. I have heard learned Counsel for the complainant, examined the statement of the complainant and its Annexures 1-5 and also peruse the complaint petition and on being satisfied cognizance taken and registered Criminal Complaint No.25/2017 against the accused Er. Budha Teron Issue summon to the accused alongwith extract copy of this order and the complaint petition with Annexures. The complainant shall take steps for process within 15 days. Fix for appearance of the parties on 15/1/2017. Budha Teron Issue summon to the accused alongwith extract copy of this order and the complaint petition with Annexures. The complainant shall take steps for process within 15 days. Fix for appearance of the parties on 15/1/2017. Sd/- AJONGBA IMCHEN CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DIMAPUR::NAGALAND' Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CJM reproduced herein above, the applicant is before this Court praying for quashing and setting aside of the same order and the complaint case itself. 4. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegation made in the complaint petition, the cause of action if any arose at Diphu and not at Dimapur therefore, the learned CJM Dimapur has no jurisdiction to admit and try the case. The learned counsel in support of his submission referred to all the acknowledgment receipts allegedly signed by the applicant for having received the amount stated above on different dates and the agreement dated 08/05/2015 allegedly signed by both the parties which according to him were apparently signed at Diphu. Thereafter, the learned counsel submitted also that as per section 177 of Cr.PC , it is the Court at Diphu who would have the jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case and not the Court at Dimapur. 5. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel also submitted that the learned CJM, Dimapur while taking cognizance of the offence charged against the applicant (accused) did not follow the provisions of section 202 (1) of Cr.PC therefore, the order dated 22/11/2017 passed in violation of the provisions of that section is liable to be quashed and set aside. According to the learned counsel, before taking cognizance in a criminal proceeding, the Magistrate should enquire into the allegation or allegations made in the petition either by himself or direct the Police to conduct investigation if the accused is residing at a place beyond the area within which the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction. This is to ensure that people who are residing at far away places from the jurisdiction of the Magistrate are not caused unnecessary harassment. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka ETC vs Najima Mamtaj ETC reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below:- '10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka ETC vs Najima Mamtaj ETC reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below:- '10. Under Section 200 of the Code, on presentation of the complaint by an individual, other than public servant in certain contingency, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses present, if any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined, if any, various options are available to him. If he is satisfied that the allegations made in the complaint and statements of the complainant on oath and the witnesses constitute an offence, he may direct for issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204 of the Code. In case, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the option available to him is to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. If on examination of the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the option available to him is to postpone the issue of process and either inquire the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer or by any other person as he thinks fit. This option is also available after the examination of the complainant only. However, in a case in which the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction whether it would be mandatory to hold inquiry or the investigation as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, is the question which needs our determination. In this connection, it is apt to refer to Section 202 of the Code which provides for postponement of issue of process. The same reads as follows: '202. In this connection, it is apt to refer to Section 202 of the Code which provides for postponement of issue of process. The same reads as follows: '202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made- (a)where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (b)where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section(1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section(1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.' 11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process 'in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not. The words 'and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' was inserted by Section 19 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23rd of June, 2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows: 'False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.' 12. The use of the expression shall prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word 'shall' is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word 'shall' in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression 'shall' and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression 'shall' and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 435 , this point need not detain us any further as in the said case, this Court has clearly held that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: '40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such cases.' 6. The learned counsel also submitted that the documents based on which the complaint petition was filed are not duly stamped as per the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 therefore, they would not be admissible in evidence and since such documents are not admissible there is not even a remote possibility of the applicant (accused in the complaint case) being convicted of the offence charged against him. As such, to allow continuance of the proceedings before the learned CJM, it would amount to abuse of Courts proceedings and lead to harassment of the applicant. Therefore, by exercising the power under section 482 Cr.PC, this Court may quash the proceedings of the case. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no prima facie case at all for proceeding in the case against the applicant. Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceeding taken up by the learned CJM, Dimapur is called for. Therefore, by exercising the power under section 482 Cr.PC, this Court may quash the proceedings of the case. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no prima facie case at all for proceeding in the case against the applicant. Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceeding taken up by the learned CJM, Dimapur is called for. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court passed in the case of Madharao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Another, ETC vs Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre and Others, ETC reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 . The relevant paragraph is reproduced here below:- '7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.' The learned counsel also referred to the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana vs Ch.Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335. The relevant paragraph referred to is paragraph 108 and the same is reproduced here below:- '108. The relevant paragraph referred to is paragraph 108 and the same is reproduced here below:- '108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- 7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' The learned counsel thereafter, also referred to the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood UL Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 2195 . The relevant paragraphs are paragraph 8, 21 to 24 and they are reproduced here below:- '8. In Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 , this Court has held that exercise under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. of summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the process of criminal law cannot be set into motion in a mechanical manner. It was also held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law governing the issue. "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 21. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. 22. Under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that ... "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. The complaint is simply to be rejected. 23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. followed by Section 204 of Cr.P.C. should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of injury or report of investigation under Section 202 of Cr.PC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting ones dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment 24. Having gone through the order passed by the Magistrate, we are satisfied that there is no indication on the application of mind by the lear5ned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process to the appellants. The contention that the application of mind has to be inferred cannot be appreciated. The further contention that without application of mind, the process will not be issued cannot also be appreciated. The contention that the application of mind has to be inferred cannot be appreciated. The further contention that without application of mind, the process will not be issued cannot also be appreciated. Though no formal or speaking or reasoned orders are required at the stage of Section 190/204 CrPC, there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituiong commission of an offence and the statements recorded under Section 200 of CrPC so as to proceed against the offender. No doubt, the High Court is right in holding that the veracity of the allegations is a question of evidence. Question is not about veracity of the Allegations; but whether the respondents are answerable at all before the criminal court. There is no indication in that regard in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. We hence, set aside the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar and the impugned order passed by the High Court. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration and further action, if required to be taken in accordance with law' 7. Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that it appears from the submission of the learned counsel of the applicant and also from the order dated 22/11/2017 of the learned CJM, Dimapur that the provisions of section 202 (1) of Cr.PC has not been strictly followed by the learned CJM, Dimapur before taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant therefore, the order dated 22/11/2017 of the CJM Dimapur may be quashed and the case may be sent back to the learned CJM to start afresh as per the provisions of section 202 (1) of Cr.PC. Mr. Luikham, further submitted that in a criminal case where cause of action arose at different places any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction one or more of the cause of action occurred is empowered to take cognizance and to try the case. The learned counsel referred to section 178 of Cr.PC in support of his submission. After having submitted as such, Mr. Luikham further submitted that as per one of the acknowledgment receipts the applicant(accused in the complaint case) signed the same at Dimapur acknowledging receipt of 5 lakhs therefore, the jurisdiction of CJM Dimapur cannot be simply ruled out. Mr. The learned counsel referred to section 178 of Cr.PC in support of his submission. After having submitted as such, Mr. Luikham further submitted that as per one of the acknowledgment receipts the applicant(accused in the complaint case) signed the same at Dimapur acknowledging receipt of 5 lakhs therefore, the jurisdiction of CJM Dimapur cannot be simply ruled out. Mr. Luikham also submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance what the Magistrate needs to see is whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the materials found in the record made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. At this stage, trial has not began therefore, the Court is not required to see whether the accused would surely be convicted. Existence of prima facie is all that is needed to be seen by the Magistrate concerned. In support of his submission, Mr. Luikham, referred to the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) SCC 609. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. The contents of the paragraphs are reproduced here below:- '3. At the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. 4. Having gone through the order passed by the Magistrate, it is fairly clear that there has been the required satisfaction. The discussion by the High Court would give an indication that the Magistrate had to appreciate the evidence and then enter a finding as to whether the accused are guilty or not. At the stage of summoning, as already stated above, the satisfaction required for the Magistrate is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. 5. Such a satisfaction for summoning an accused having been made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering with the summoning order. It was too early for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise. The impugned order is, hence, set aside. The appeal is allowed.' Mr. Luikham, also referred to an unreported judgment of the Honble Supreme Court passed Criminal Appeal No.255/2019 8. It was too early for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise. The impugned order is, hence, set aside. The appeal is allowed.' Mr. Luikham, also referred to an unreported judgment of the Honble Supreme Court passed Criminal Appeal No.255/2019 8. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels based on the materials filed by both the parties. I have also gone through the judgments referred to by both the learned counsels and the provisions of the Cr.PC, the Indian Stamp Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reading together of section 177 and 178 of Cr.PC makes it clear that it is the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose which will have the jurisdiction to take cognizance in a criminal complaint case and also to try the same. From the documents shown by Mr. Luikham which is the acknowledgment receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs allegedly signed by the applicant herein (accused in the complaint case) shows that the cause of action for the complaint case did not wholly or entirely arose at Diphu but at Dimapur also. Whether the signature of the acknowledgment receipt is that of the applicant (accused in the complaint case) or not would be determined at the time of taking evidence. However, prima facie, the acknowledgment receipts reveals that the cause of action did not arise only at Diphu but at Dimapur also as stated above. Therefore, as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, this Court is of the view that the Court of CJM at Dimapur does have jurisdiction to take cognizance and to try the case if he finds prima facie that the complaint is genuine and the facts and circumstances stated therein constitute any offence. Having stated thus, however, it is clear from the provisions of section 202 (1) Cr.PC that before taking cognizance and issuing process in a criminal case specially when the accused is outside the jurisdiction of the Court before whom the complaint case is filed, the Magistrate concerned should first enquire into the facts and circumstances either by himself or ask the Police to investigate. This is mandatory but it appears from the order dated 22/11/2017 of the CJM, Dimapur that the provision of section 202(1) has been overlooked and therefore, neither enquiry was conducted nor investigation was ordered and conducted. This is mandatory but it appears from the order dated 22/11/2017 of the CJM, Dimapur that the provision of section 202(1) has been overlooked and therefore, neither enquiry was conducted nor investigation was ordered and conducted. As such, the order dated 22/11/2017 of the CJM, Dimapur is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 22/11/2017 passed by the learned CJM, Dimapur taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing process is quashed and set aside. 9. Let the record be send back to the CJM, Dimapur. On receipt of the same and a copy of this order, the learned CJM, Dimapur shall start afresh and proceed as per law and keeping in view the guidelines and the principles of law settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above and other cases. 10. The criminal petition is disposed of.