JUDGMENT : Robin Phukan, J. 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner Sri Yangbiu Takik, son of Late Yangbiu Tadik of IG Park, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh for quashing the FIR of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 136/2011, under Sections 188/341/353 IPC, read with section 3 of PDPP Act and corresponding G.R. Case No. 408/2011, and its subsequent proceeding, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 2. The factual background leading to filing of this criminal petition is adumbrated herein below :- “The petitioner is the President of Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation (AVYF). The federation declared a 12 hours capital bandh on 23.09.2011. But, subsequently, the federation withdrew the said bandh call on 22.09.2011. However, the same was not duly published. Thereafter, on 23.09.2011, some miscreants pelted stone and forcefully stopped three vehicles:-(1) Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. AR01-D/0263; (2) one Bolero, bearing registration No. AR01B-9274; and (3) one Gypsy, bearing registration No. AR01B4604; and another police bus bearing registration No. AR-01C/0211, near Pappu Nalla petrol pump, Naharlagun and caused damage of the glasses. Some police personnel also got injuries in the said incident and they were treated at General Hospital, Naharlagun. Thereafter, the DSP, Itanagar, had lodged one FIR with the OC, Naharlagun P.S. on 23.09.2011, to that effect. On receipt of the same the OC, Naharlagun PS registered Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 136/2011, under Section 188/341/353/325/34 IPC, read with Section 3 of PDPP Act, and endorsed a SI-T. Loya to investigate the same. The IO then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and got the victims examined by Doctor and collected the report. Then on completion of the investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and one Sangha Ramu, to stand trial in the Court under section read with section 3 of the PDPA Act. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Court of learned CJM, Yupia but due to non appearance of the co-accused no headway could be achieved in the trial. Thereafter, the petitioner files a petition under section 258 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, to drop the proceeding against him. But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia rejected the petition, instead the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate split up his case and framed charge against him under Section 353/325/34 read with Section 3 of PDPP Act. Thereafter, the petitioner files a petition under section 258 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, to drop the proceeding against him. But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia rejected the petition, instead the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate split up his case and framed charge against him under Section 353/325/34 read with Section 3 of PDPP Act. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the grounds:- (i) That, 12 hours capital bandh call on 23.09.2011 by AVYF was settled amicably amongst the bandh caller and as such the petitioner, being President called off the bandh on 22.09.2011 and that the District Magistrate, Yupia has issued one show cause notice to him on 29.09.2011, to which he has submitted the reply; and (ii) That, he had no knowledge about the culprits nor he was present on the spot and pelted stone to the vehicles and therefore, the charge under Sections 352/325/34 IPC, and read with Section 3 of PDPP Act, are not maintainable; (iii) That, though some police personnel got injuries in the alleged pelting of stone, yet no medical record of the injured persons has been produced and no damage report of the vehicles also been produced and; (iv) That, there is no evidence to show that the accused caused wrongful restraint to the police personnel and pelted stone to them and as such offence under section 353/325/34 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act are not attracted against him; (v) That, one Sangha Ramu was arrested in connection with the case who has categorically stated that he has no connection with the petitioner and there is no prima facie material against the petitioner to show his involvement in the said offences either directly or indirectly; (vi) That, except the allegation of being the President of Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation, there is no materials against him and therefore it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the FIR and Naharlagun P.S. Case No.136/2011 and the subsequent proceeding of GR case No.408/2011, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia;” 3. Heard Mr. C. Modi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Mr. Heard Mr. C. Modi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Mr. Modi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the case against him though lodged in the year 2011, yet it is pending till date in the Court of learned CJM, Yupia. Mr. Modi taking us to the record of the learned Court below has submitted that the allegation, even if taken at their face value, failed to disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the accused-petitioner. It is further submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner is the President of Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation and it is also a fact that the federation called a capital complex bandh on 23.09.2011. But, the ground for calling the bandh was settled amicably and therefore, they called off the bandh on 22.09.2011, and a press release was also issued by the accused/petitioner on 22.09.2011 (Annexure-H) and that the petitioner has no relation with the miscreants who had pelted stone and caused misuse of three vehicles and one police vehicle and caused injuries to the police personnel. It is further submitted that the police apprehended one person, namely, Sangha Ramu from the place of occurrence and the said Sangha Ramu has no relation with the Federation as well as the petitioner and for any mischief caused by the miscreants, the petitioner cannot be held liable. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2019), Mr. Modi submitted that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned CJM, Yupia against the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Modi submitted that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceeding pending before the Court of learned CJM, Yupia against the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G. Tado submits that though the bandh given by the Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation was called off on 22.09.2011, yet due publicity was not given to the same, for which the members of the federation have pelted stones and caused mischief of three vehicles, and another police vehicle and also injured some police personnel and as such the petitioner is responsible for the same and he has rightly being charge sheeted and the learned CJM, Yupia has rightly framed charge against him. Mr. Tado, relied upon a decision of this Court in Lower Assam Inter District Stage Carriage Bus Owner’s Association v. State of Assam and Others in Writ Petition (Civil 7570/203) further submitted that there are sufficient materials against the accused and as such the proceeding pending against him cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the documents placed on records and also the case laws referred by learned Advocates of both the parties. It appears from the FIR lodged by DSP, S. Singpho on 26.09.2011, that in connection with the capital bandh call given by Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation from 0500 hours to 1700 hours, some activities of the said federation at around 0600 hours forcefully stopped three vehicles (1) Tata Sumo bearing registration no. AR01-D/0263, (2) Bolero bearing registration no. AR01B-9274 and (3) Gypsy bearing registration no. AR01B-4604 and another police bus bearing registration no. AR-01C/0211 near Pappu Nalla petrol pump, Naharlagun and assaulted the occupants of the said vehicles with stone and also caused damage to the glasses of the said vehicles. As a result one Shri Mobia Tara, one Shri T. Nyodu and one Shri Avdesh Kumar and Shri M.S. Rana and Shri A.P. Pandey, all are police personnel, sustained injuries and the activist also resorted to stone pelting to a police bus bearing registration no. AR-01C/0211 and damaged the rear glasses and two side window glasses. 7. It further appears that the Investigating Officer has apprehended one Sangha Ramu from the place of occurrence. AR-01C/0211 and damaged the rear glasses and two side window glasses. 7. It further appears that the Investigating Officer has apprehended one Sangha Ramu from the place of occurrence. But, interestingly, the said Sangha Ramu categorically denied having any relation with the Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation and acquainted with its office bearers. And as such the allegation of involvement of the Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation of the petitioner and his personnel involvement in the incident of pelting of stone at the vehicles and causing injuries to the police personnel appears to be not substantiated. Besides, the damage report of the vehicles and the injury reports of the police personnel also not been produced to substantiate the allegation made in the FIR. 8. Thus, the allegation made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value failed to disclose commission of a cognizable offence against the accused-petitioner. It is a fact that the petitioner is the President of Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation, but, there is neither direct nor indirect evidence of his involvement with the offence of pelting stone and causing injuries to the police personnel. Nor there is any evidence of assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from lawful discharge of his duty. It also appears that though bandh call was given on 23.09.2011, yet, the same was withdrawn on 22.09.2011, as the grounds for bandh call have been settled amicably. 9. It is also to be mentioned here that after rejecting the petition u/s 258 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner, the ld. Court below has examined four prosecution witnesses namely (i) Mobio Tara as P.W.1; (ii) M.S. Rana as P.W.2; (iii) Awadesh Kumar as P.W.3; and (iv) T. Nyido as P.W.4; as is apparent from the record of the ld. Court below. But, none of them have whispered any word implicating the petitioner or his Federation. 10. Thus, we find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Modi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also we find that the ratio laid down in the case law referred by him fully substantiate his submission. Court below. But, none of them have whispered any word implicating the petitioner or his Federation. 10. Thus, we find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Modi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also we find that the ratio laid down in the case law referred by him fully substantiate his submission. Besides Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Chaudhary Bhajanlal and Others 1992 AIR 604 has held that in the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following category of cases, given by way of illustration, wherein such power to be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure end of justice:- (a) For the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case. (b) For the allegation in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanied the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by Police Officer under Section 156(1) of the Code except an order of Magistrate within a purview of Section 165(2) of the Code. (c) Where uncontroverted allegation 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. (d) When 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (e) For the allegation made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach in an allegation that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (f) Where there is an expressed legal bar incorporated in any of the provisions of the faulty or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding and/or where there is specific provision of the Court or the concerned Act, proceeding efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (f) Where there is an expressed legal bar incorporated in any of the provisions of the faulty or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding and/or where there is specific provision of the Court or the concerned Act, proceeding efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (g) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for racking vengeance by the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. Application of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case, and also in the case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the factual matrix here in this case, will show that the allegation made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety the same do not constitute or make out a case against the accused-petitioner, under section 353/325/34 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act, here in this case. The bandh call given by the Arunachal Voluntary Youth Federation was called off on 22.09.2011, and a press release was also issued to that effect, as the demand of the federation has been amicably been settled. Despite, some of the miscreants caused mischief of the vehicles and pelted stones and caused injuries to police personnel. But, no injury reports as well as report of damage of the vehicles have been produced here in this case. Moreover, one of the persons responsible for pelting of stone at the vehicles namely-Sangha Ramu is arrested by police from the place of occurrence and charge sheeted here in this case, who categorically stated that he does not know the President of the Federation and he has no relation with the same. As such the claim of pelting stones at the vehicles and causing damage and also causing of injuries to the police personnel cannot be said to have been done by the activist of the Federation of the accused/petitioner. 12. I have considered the submissions of the ld. Addl. P.P. and gone through the case law, Lower Assam Inter District Stage Carriage Bus Owner’s Association v. State of Assam and Others (supra), referred by him. 12. I have considered the submissions of the ld. Addl. P.P. and gone through the case law, Lower Assam Inter District Stage Carriage Bus Owner’s Association v. State of Assam and Others (supra), referred by him. In the said case this court has issued some direction to curb the menace of bandhs and blockades and declared the same as illegal and unconstitutional. But, I am left unimpressed by his submission. To the considered opinion of this court and in absence of any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, only on the basis of the case law referred by the ld. Addl. P.P., the accused/petitioner can be held responsible for the unfortunate incident. 13. Under the above facts and circumstance, further proceeding of the case would be an exercise in futility and abuse of the process of the Court. The case was registered in the year 2011 and the charge sheet was laid on 25.11.2014. no headways could be achieved even after lapse of 10 years. The accused/petitioner has been appearing numbers of times before the ld. Trial court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the provisions of 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked and the proceeding can be quashed at this stage to secure the end of justice. 14. In the result this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. FIR in Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 136/2011, under Sections 353/325/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act and subsequent proceeding of G.R. Case No. 408/2011 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia so far related to the petitioner-Yangbio Takik, stands quashed.