Manipur High Court: In a set of two criminal petitions wherein the petitioner was seeking to quash the First Information Report (‘FIR’) against him under Section 17 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) the Single Judge Bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J. said that the offences under UAPA are serious ones relating to the security of the nation and FIR cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without going to the complete merit of the case and directed the respondents to complete the investigation within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order and submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C to the Court.
Background
In the matter at hand, the petitioner was arrested on 21-04-2012 in connection with for offences under Section 17 and 20 UAPA and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, released him on bail on 30-04-2012. The petitioner was allegedly carrying Rs. 90,000/- with him. The petitioner is presently running a business of mobile food truck and is a family man taking care of his old-aged parents, wife and two minor sons, and he is the only bread earner of the family, and his wife is helping him in the food truck business. The petitioner is picked up from his residence on every Independence Day and Republic Day i.e., 15th August and 26th January every year by the police and photographs are taken in full public view and hence, his prestige and reputation has been tarnished in the society. There has been no progress in the petitioner’s case since 10 years, therefore the petitioner sought the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’), to quash his name from the FIR or direct the State of Manipur, the Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station, Babupara (‘respondents’) to file charge sheet within a time frame.
The petitioner was also seeking in another petition, to direct the respondents to not pick up the petitioner and wrongfully detain him in custody on the grounds that such routine detention of the petitioner on the eve of 26th January and 15th August every year and also during the visit of high dignitaries, violates his right of live with dignity and his right of privacy.
Court’s Decision
The Court discussed the trajectory of case laws on the right to live with dignity. The Court referred to Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332 wherein the Supreme Court while considering the validity of domiciliary visits by police under Regulation 236 of the UP Police Regulations which authorised visits during night time to the residence of the person under surveillance, held that such a provision violated the personal liberty to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also referred to K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, wherein it was held that the right to privacy and to live with dignity is a facet of personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court perused the records of the FIR and said that the investigation of the FIR lodged in the year 2012 could not be completed till date and that there was not much progress in the investigation. The only explanation given by the State authorities was that associates of the present petitioner could not be arrested and hence, the matter could not be completed. The Court further said that the offences under UAPA are serious ones relating to the security of the nation and FIR cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without going to the complete merit of the case. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to complete the investigation within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order and submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court concerned.
The Court further directed that if the presence of the petitioner is required by the Investigating Agency in connection with the FIR or for any reason, a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. be issued to the petitioner for his appearance before the Investigating Authority on a particular date. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Investigating Officer, necessary steps may be taken by the police for effecting the appearance of the petitioner. The Court issued this direction keeping in mind the settled principles of law of maintaining the intricate balance between the fundamental right to live with dignity of a citizen vis-à-vis the affairs of security of the State. The Court also said that the Court ought not to pass any sort of order which may restrict the power of police in maintaining the law and order of the State, except for protecting the basic right of a citizen.
[Maisnam Korouhanba Luwang v. State of Manipur, 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 175, Decided on 05-06-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocate H. Kenajit and Advocate Albert Keisham;
For the respondents: Public Prosecutor H. Samarjit.
