JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. The instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, has been filed by the accused/petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending against him in connection with G. R. Case No. 133/2006, under Section 384 /511 of the IPC, corresponding to ITA P. S. Case No. 127/2006. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2006, there was an election for the post of Secretary/President of the Itanagar Market Welfare Society. In that election, one Shri Yumlam Achung, Shri Baman Tagik and the accused/petitioner had submitted their candidatures for the post of Secretary of the aforesaid society. During the aforesaid election process, an FIR dated 19.07.2006 was lodged by the informant(Late Anil Chandra Kar, since deceased) against the accused/petitioner, alleging that the accused/petitioner, equipped with small arms, came to him last 20 days back and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in order to purchase petrol and out of fear, the informant had given the said amount and again on 19.07.2006, at around 10.30 am, the accused/petitioner came to his shop and demanded Rs. 50,000/- in favour of NSCN within 23.07.2006. It was alleged that the informant was threatened by the accused/petitioner that in case, he failed to pay the aforesaid amount then, the informant had to face dire consequences. The informant did not pay the amount as demanded by the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, ITA P.S. Case No. 127/2006, under Sections 384 /506 of the IPC was registered against the accused/petitioner.The accused/petitioner came to know about the aforesaid FIR lodged against him for extortion of money and on enquiry, it came to light that three local boys went to the informant and forcefully took the signature of the informant in a paper without explaining the contents of the document. Accordingly, after investigation, a Charge-sheet was filed on 06.03.2008, under Sections 201 /384/506 of the IPC, read with Section 25(B)(a)/27 of the ARMS ACT , 1959, against the accused/petitioner. It is seen from the aforesaid Charge-sheet that as many as 8 (eight) persons had been named in the Charge-sheet to be examined by the prosecution for establishing of the case against the accused/petitioner. 4. It is seen from the aforesaid Charge-sheet that as many as 8 (eight) persons had been named in the Charge-sheet to be examined by the prosecution for establishing of the case against the accused/petitioner. 4. It is seen from the records that though the Charge-sheet was filed on 06.03.2008, for reasons best known, the proceeding of the trial started only on 02.06.2022 by framing of the charge against the accused/petitioner, under Sections 384 /511 of the IPC. Due to non-availability of the prosecution sanction, under Section 39 of the ARMS ACT , 1959, the charge against the accused/petitioner under the ARMS ACT , could not be framed. 5. The records of the case are received from the Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, District-Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh, reveal that till date only PW-1 (Late Anil Chandra Kar, the informant), who was declared as hostile witness and PW-2, Shri Tilak Bahadur Biswakarmawere examined. 6. It is seen from the records that the PWs, Muna Kumar Sha and Modan Biswas were dropped from the list of PWs, as the summons issued to them returned unserved from their Itanagar address, as they left the Itanagar address without leaving any information about their whereabouts. The summons to the other PWs are yet to be served. 7. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner submits that from the evidences adduced by PW nos. 1 & 2, it is seen that the informant/victim did not lodge any complaint/FIR against the accused/petitioner, however, it is a fact that some unknown local boys came to the shop of the informant and asked him to put his signature on a paper without disclosing the contents of the same and out of fear, the informant put his signature on the plain paper, which was taken as the FIR lodged by the informant. He submits that PW-1 i.e., the informant, has been declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross- examination, he has specifically mentioned that he did not know the accused/petitioner. He stated that the accused/petitioner did not come to his shop and made any such demand. Further, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner is not aware of any offence as alleged in the FIR, had been committed by him. 8. He stated that the accused/petitioner did not come to his shop and made any such demand. Further, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner is not aware of any offence as alleged in the FIR, had been committed by him. 8. In the instant petition, an additional affidavit has been filed by the accused/petitioner to bring on record an affidavit sworn by one Smti Saraswati Kar (wife of the late Anil Kumar Kar, the informant) to the effect that her husband late Anil Kumar Kar had told her that he had never filed any FIR against the accused/petitioner. She further stated that on 19.07.2006, three unknown persons came to her husband’s shop and subsequently, took signature of her deceased husband in a paper without explaining the contents of the document. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, in view of the aforesaid affidavit, submits that it is apparent from the affidavit sworn by the wife of the informant that, in fact, the FIR was not lodged by the informant and the same was lodged without his knowledge by some unknown political rival of the accused/petitioner. In view of the above position, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the chance of conviction of the accused/petitioner is remote and bleak rather, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court if the case is allowed to be proceeded further. More so, it will be a harassment for the accused/petitioner for no fault of his, as he has to appear before the learned Trial Court on several dates fixed even though the alleged incident occurred way back in the year 2006. 9. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, further submits that 3(three) of the remaining PWs named in the Charge-sheet are yet to be served with the summons as their whereabouts are not known to the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that no fruitful purpose will be served in going ahead with the Trial against the accused/petitioner. 10. During the course of hearing, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted a copy of the deposition of PW-5 i.e., Shri Jumli Kamdak, Sub-Inspector, who had filed the Charge-sheet in the instant case. Therefore, he submits that no fruitful purpose will be served in going ahead with the Trial against the accused/petitioner. 10. During the course of hearing, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted a copy of the deposition of PW-5 i.e., Shri Jumli Kamdak, Sub-Inspector, who had filed the Charge-sheet in the instant case. In his statement, he had narrated the story which is already there in the Charge-sheet and he reiterates that after proper investigation and seizure of the Maruti vehicle, which was used for committing the offence, the Charge-sheet was filed. He has also stated that during the investigation, he seized one country made Pistol made in China, one country made Pistol made in Russia along with 9 mm ammunitions. However, he stated that though he had sought for prosecution sanction from the concerned authority for proceeding against the accused/petitioner, he did not collect the prosecution sanction till date. 11. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has submitted that even after passing of 16 years, the prosecution has failed to obtain the prosecution sanction, which clearly shows that, in fact, the prosecution does not have any case against the accused/petitioner under the ARMS ACT . Therefore, he submits that at this delayed stage, it may not be right for the prosecution to charge the accused/petitioner under the ARMS ACT . 12. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has submitted a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Lokam Talo & Anr., vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh (Crl. Petn. No. 165/2024) , decided on 07.03.2025 involving the accused/petitioner. He submits that a similar case arose out of the G.R. Case No. 134/2006, under Section 125 of the IPC, against the same accused/petitioner and an application under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, was filed jointly by the accused/petitioner and the informant/victim therein, for quashing of the proceeding in connection with the aforesaid G. R. case. He submits that after hearing the matter, wherein also the PWs were declared hostile by the prosecution, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petition of the accused/petitioner by quashing the further proceeding in the G.R. Case No. 134/2006. He submits that the instant case is exactly the same as in that case too, an FIR was filed by some unknown persons taking the signature of the informant forcefully, and in the instant case also, same thing happened. He submits that the instant case is exactly the same as in that case too, an FIR was filed by some unknown persons taking the signature of the informant forcefully, and in the instant case also, same thing happened. Therefore, he submits that this application may be also allowed being exactly the same with the aforesaid case, decided on 07.03.2025. 13. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, in support of his statement that a delayed prosecution sanction under the ARMS ACT , will prejudice the accused/petitioner in the present case, he has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das vs. State of Bihar , reported in 2001 Supreme (SC) 1429 . The learned counsel takes support of Paragraph nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the said case, which being relevant, are extracted herein below: - “ 8. This Court in Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 1994 SC 948] quashed the investigation against the accused on account of not granting the sanction for more than 13 years. The facts of the present case are almost identical. No useful purpose would be served to put the appellant at trial at this belated stage. 9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to quash the proceedings against the appellant as permitting further prosecution would be the travesty of justice and a mere ritual or formality so far as the prosecution agency is concerned, and unnecessary burden as regards the courts. 10. This appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the order impugned and quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellant on the basis of PS No. 0017/88 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.” 14. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State, raised a serious objection and has submitted that from a plain reading of the FIR, it discloses a cognizable offence and merely because the PW-1 i.e., the informant turning hostile, there cannot be any adverse effect on the whole proceeding. He submits that there are more than 3 to 5 important PWs are yet to be examined by the Trial Court. He submits that though the FIR discloses cognizable offence against the accused/petitioner, he, in spite of passing of so many years, had not challenged the FIR, which shows the guilt of the accused/petitioner. He submits that there are more than 3 to 5 important PWs are yet to be examined by the Trial Court. He submits that though the FIR discloses cognizable offence against the accused/petitioner, he, in spite of passing of so many years, had not challenged the FIR, which shows the guilt of the accused/petitioner. He submits that this Court, cannot run a mini trial under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, and thereby, appreciate/re-appreciate evidences recorded by the Trial Court which is the job of the Trial Court. He further submits that it is not disputed that the Arms were seized by the Investigating Authority from the accused/petitioner in the instant case, and only because of non-availability of the prosecution sanction under the ARMS ACT , the charge against the accused/petitioner under the ARMS ACT has not been framed. He submits that the prosecution sanction can be obtained at this stage also and in that case, the accused/petitioner may be charged under the relevant provisions of the ARMS ACT . 15. He further submits that the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2025, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is not applicable to the instant case, inasmuch as, in the present case, only one PW i.e., the deceased informant has turned hostile and there are many other PWs who are yet to be examined. Whereas, in the other case, all the PWs became hostile and in that situation conviction of the accused/petitioner was doubtful. He submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the aforesaid judgment. 16. In support of his submissions made herein above, the learned Addl. P.P. has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supriya Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, and more specifically, he has emphasized on Paragraph No. 17, relevant part of which are extracted herein below: - “ 17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. State of Haryana & Another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, and more specifically, he has emphasized on Paragraph No. 17, relevant part of which are extracted herein below: - “ 17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge/proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397, Cr. P.C. or section 482, Cr. P.C. or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarized by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, this Court laid down the following guiding principles: "27.1. …………………………………………………. 27.2. ………………………………………………….. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. …………………………………………………… 27.5. …………………………………………………… 27.6. …………………………………………………… 27.7. …………………………………………………… 27.8. …………………………………………………… 27.9. …………………………………………………… 27.10. …………………………………………………. 27.11. …………………………………………………. 27.12. …………………………………………………. 27.2. ………………………………………………….. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. …………………………………………………… 27.5. …………………………………………………… 27.6. …………………………………………………… 27.7. …………………………………………………… 27.8. …………………………………………………… 27.9. …………………………………………………… 27.10. …………………………………………………. 27.11. …………………………………………………. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. …………………………………………………….. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.” 17. In the case cited by the learned Addl. P.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is no part business of any of the Courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. It is also held that unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. 18. Taking support of the aforesaid case cited, the learned Addl. P.P., submits that this Court shall not unduly interfere. It is also held that unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. 18. Taking support of the aforesaid case cited, the learned Addl. P.P., submits that this Court shall not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is required for considering at this stage to come to a conclusion as to whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. He submits that the affidavit, which has been sworn by the wife of the informant is an external document, which is not before the Trial Court and the same, should not be taken into account by this Court while hearing a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023. He submits that the power under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised very sparingly to substantiate justice and nothing else. He submits that the proceeding before the Trial Court is going in the right direction and hence, any interference at this stage will derail the proceeding, which is not warranted at this stage. 19. The learned Addl. P. P. has cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 . The learned counsel specifically had relied on the Paragraph nos. 10 & 11 of the case, which being relevant, are reproduced herein below for ready reference: - “ 10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not". 11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the Initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.” 20. Taking support of the aforesaid case, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that as laid down in the case, the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS , the court is not required to conduct the mini trial. He submits that this is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the persecution/investigating agency. He submits that this is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the persecution/investigating agency. Therefore, he submits that a trial is required for proper dispensation of justice and on completion of the trial only, it could be decided as to whether the chargesas framed against the accused/petitioner are correct or incorrect. Therefore, this Court may not indulge into coming to a conclusion as to whether the charges framed against the accused/petitioner are correct or not at this very initial stage. 21. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the TCR that has been submitted before this Court. I have also considered the case laws that have been submitted by both the parties. 22. It is not disputed that though the FIR was filed way back in the year 2006, the Charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2022 only, after a period of 16 years. Any explanation of such delay of 16 years in filing the Charge-sheet could not be found on record. 23. On perusal of the TCR, it reveals that as many as 3(three) of the PWs, which have been listed as witnesses in the Charge-sheet are yet to be served with summons. 2(two) of the witnesses named in the Charge-sheet have already been dropped, on the request of the P.P. before the Trial Court as the summons to them could not be served in spite of several attempts, as their whereabouts are not known. 24. It is seen that the chances of serving summons on the aforesaid 3(three) PWs are also doubtful, as the summons could not be served in spite of several attempts till date. It is also seen that the Investigating Agency has not taken any effort to procure the prosecution sanction under the ARMS ACT in spite of seizure of arms and ammunition from the accused/petitioner. 25. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, taking support from the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the investigation against the accused on account of non-grant of sanction for more than 13 years. 25. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, taking support from the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the investigation against the accused on account of non-grant of sanction for more than 13 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no useful purpose would be served to put the appellant on Trial at that belated stage. This Court is also of the considered view that justice will not be served if the accused/petitioner is put to face the charges against him under the ARMS ACT , if at all, the Investigating Agency procures the sanction under the ARMS ACT and charges are framed against the accused/petitioner under the ARMS ACT , at this stage. The charges under the ARMS ACT were not framed against the accused/petitioner due to non-receipt of the prosecution sanction from the concerned authority. 26. As far as, other charges framed against the accused/petitioner is concerned, it cannot be denied that the FIR, prima facie, disclose a cognizable offence on the basis of which the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was also filed against the accused/petitioner. 27. On perusal of the statement of the PWs recorded till date, as well as the fact that dropping of 2(two) of the PWs and also keeping in view the fact that summons could not be served to 3(three) of the main PWs for the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the chances of conviction of the accused/petitioner in the present case, is very remote and doubtful even if the case is allowed to be proceeded further, taking into account of the fact that the informant PW-1 has been declared hostile and hasalready expired and the statement of the PW-2 also does not disclose any offence committed by the accused/petitioner. 28. This Court has considered the ratios that have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases cited by the learned Addl. P.P. and there is no iota of doubt of the principles those have to be considered by this Court while exercising it’s power under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023. 29. In due consideration of all the material facts of the instant case, as well as the objection raised by the learned Addl. P.P. and there is no iota of doubt of the principles those have to be considered by this Court while exercising it’s power under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023. 29. In due consideration of all the material facts of the instant case, as well as the objection raised by the learned Addl. P.P., this Court is of the considered view that substantial justice may not be served if the aforesaid proceeding against the accused/petitioner, in connection with G.R. Case No. 133/2006, under Sections 384 /511 of the IPC, corresponding to ITA P.S. Case No. 127/2006 is allowed to go ahead at this stage. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding against the accused/petitioner in connection with G.R. Case No.133/2006, under Sections 384 /511 of the IPC, corresponding to ITA P.S. Case No. 127/2006 is hereby set aside and quashed. 30. The instant criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, stands allowed and disposed of.