Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010129202022 2026:GAU-AS:10924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./618/2022 GOURISH NAIDING S/O- LATE GOPAL CHANDRA NAIDING, R/O- VILL.- DIBARAI, P.S. HAFLONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM 2:RUPAM DIBRAGEDE S/O- LATE RAJAT DIBRAGEDE R/O- SUNGYA SUMBUDHAN RAZI P.S. HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO PIN- 788819 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M MAHANTA, MR. P K MUNIR,MR. A GAYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, N K NEOG (R-2),MR. M DAS (R-2) Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. P K Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State as well as Mr. B Baruah, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the legality and validity of the criminal proceeding drawn up against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haflong, Dima Hasao in G.R. Case No. 82/2020 (PRC No. 84/2021), whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other accused for offences under Sections 387/507 IPC. 3. Mr. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stay order granted by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 in the present criminal proceeding, though further proceeding in the aforesaid criminal case was stayed in respect of the present petitioner, however, the trial continued in respect of the other co-accused, i.e., Ramesh Phonglo and upon completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court by judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 acquitted the said co-accused Ramesh Phonglo on the ground of lack of incriminating material evidence against him. 4. Mr. Munir further submits that there is no case made out against the petitioner either in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. He further submits that in fact the prosecution witnesses who were examined during trial have also not incriminated the present petitioner. Referring to the CDR and the evidence adduced during trial, including the prosecution evidence which continued in respect of the co-accused, Mr. Munir, contends that nothing has come out as regards the involvement of the petitioner. Page No.# 3/7 5. Mr. B Baruah, learned counsel for the informant submits that since the co- accused has already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court, as such, he does not have any further submission to make in the present quashing petition. 6. Mr. D P Goswami, learned APP fairly submits that since nothing has come out in respect of the present petitioner either during the investigation stage or trial which continued for the other co-accused, perhaps continuance of the proceeding against the present petitioner would be unjustified. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. It appears that this Court earlier on 03.03.2023 upon a detailed evaluation of the materials available on record, was prima facie satisfied that there was no criminal case made out against the petitioner. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order read as under: “8. Considered the interim prayer. The statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that though there is an allegation of demanding ransom through mobile number being 8729813648, no individual has been implicated by any of the witnesses. The only link is the aforesaid mobile phone. The material also discloses that, one accused Ramesh Funglo has stated to have admitted that the said SIM number belongs to him and he used the said SIM in his Samsung hand-set. The said co accused has also not implicated the present petitioner inasmuch as a person cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of a co-accused. 9. The seizure witnesses, in presence of whom the mobile hand set was seized stated that the hand set was seized from Ramesh Furlong . The petitioner is not named by such witness. 10. The details of call record relied on by the investigating authority is also not supported by any certificate under 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882. No such certificate is available with the record alongwith the electronic records i.e. CDR. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interim protection. Accordingly, it is provided that till this matter is decided, further proceeding so far relating to present petitioner, in Page No.# 4/7 connection with G. Ṛ. Case No. 82/2020 (PRC 84/2021) arising out of First Information Report registered as Haflong P. S. Case No. 47/2020 shall remain suspended.” 9. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, namely, Rupam Dibragede, Inspector of Food and Civil Supply & Consumer Affairs, Dima Hasao, Haflong lodged the FIR on 29.02.2020 alleging, inter alia, that the informant had been getting phone calls from one mobile number 8729813648 demanding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him, threatening him that in case of non-payment of the demanded money, the miscreants would try to murder him. 10. During investigation, it has come into light that the aforesaid mobile handset belonged to the co-accused Ramesh Phonglo. During further investigation, the involvement of the present petitioner being suspected, he was also arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and subsequently enlarged on bail. 11. During trial, it appears that the prosecution had examined four prosecution witnesses including the informant and the Investigating Officer of the case. 12. Upon evaluation of the evidence adduced during trial, it transpires that in the CDR pertaining to mobile No. 8729813648, the caller name appeared as “Vihuka Achu”. However, according to the intelligence report relied upon by the Investigating Officer, the actual user of the said mobile number was one Musarang @ Sudhir Sorongphang, who remained absconding. The judgment of the learned Trial Court further records that there was no call from the said mobile number either to the mobile phone of the co-accused Ramesh Phonglo or to the present petitioner. The relevant findings of the learned Trial Court are extracted below: “6.12. From the evidence of PW 4/1.0., it is seen that the demand call of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) was made to informant by a mobile No. 8729813648. In the CDR of mobile No. 8729813648, the caller name is shown as one Vihuka Achu but as per Intelligence Report, the user of said SIM card is accused Musarang @ Sudhir Sorongphang. PW 4 has not submitted any documentary evidence showing that accused Musarang @ Sudhir Sorongphang is using mobile No. 8729813648. No call was made from mobile No. Page No.# 5/7 8729813648 to the phone of Gourish Naiding and Romesh Phonglo. No other person to whom telephonic call from mobile No. 8729813648 has been made was interrogated in this case. The SIM card No. 8729813648 alongwith mobile phone could not be seized. The seized mobile phones are not examined in FSL. 7. Upon juxtaposition of the prosecution witnesses, it can be seen that the informant/PW 1 namely Mr. Rupam Dibragede received the telephonic demand call from mobile No. 8729813648, which is also mentioned in the FIR marked as Ext. P1. The I.O./PW 4 in his evidence has corroborated that the demand call to the informant was made by using mobile No. 8729813648. In his cross- examination, the I.O./PW 4 inter-alia stated that the SIM card No. 8729813648 alongwith its mobile phone could not be seized in this case. 1.0./PW 4 further stated that from the CDR of mobile No. 8729813648, it is shown that the caller name is Vihuka Achu but as per Intelligence Report accused Musarang @ Sudhir Sorongphang is using the same SIM card but there is no documentary evidence regarding the same. I.O./PW 4 further stated that no call was made from mobile No. 8729813648 to the mobiles of accused Romesh Phonglo and Gourish Naiding and that no person to whom telephonic call was made from mobile No. 8729813648 has been interrogated in this case. 7.1. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the 1.0./PW 4 could not trace out/ascertain as to who or which culprit has actually made the telephonic demand call demanding ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) extortion money from the informant. I.O./PW 4 in his cross-examination has inter-alia stated that he could not find out the exact date when the telephonic demand call was made to the informant, which goes to show that the I.O. during investigation even could not ascertain the actual date on which the telephonic demand call was made. Moreover, there are no materials on record to substantiate the claim of the I.O. that the mobile No. 8729813648 which is in the name of one Vihuka Achu is being used by accused Musarong @ Sudhir Sorongphang. 7.2 The I.O. has seized two mobile phones, one each from accused Romesh Phonglo and Gourish Naiding respectively but no call was made from mobile No. 8729813648 to the phone number of Romesh Phonglo and Gourish Naiding. 7.3 The informant/PW 1 in his evidence inter-alia deposed that he could not recognise/identify the voice of the person who made the telephonic demand call. In his cross-examination, PW 1 inter-alia stated that he cannot say about the culprit and has not paid any ransom money to any person. PW 2, a seizure witness in his cross-examination inter-alia stated that he does not know the contents of the ejahar as well as the facts of the case and cannot say/does not know why the mobile phone was seized. PW 3 in his cross-examination inter- alia stated that he does not know the caller or any of the culprits.” 13. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Trial Court found that the co-accused Page No.# 6/7 Ramesh Phonglo was innocent and was not involved in the case and that he was falsely implicated in the case by the police. 14. The materials collected during investigation do not disclose any incriminating circumstance against the present petitioner. On the contrary, the evidence that subsequently came on record during the trial of the co-accused completely demolishes the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses have not attributed any overt act to the present petitioner nor has any evidence emerged connecting him with the alleged demand for ransom. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 15. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal, Appeal (Crl.) No. 1308 of 2001, wherein it has been held that where the allegations and evidence against the accused stand on an identical footing with those against a co-accused who has already been acquitted, the benefit of such acquittal can appropriately be extended: “5. The position in law as to what happens in case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the same set of facts an similar accusations has been considered by this Court in several cases. 6. A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended” 16. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are not only similar but are founded upon the very same set of materials that were considered by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the co-accused. No independent material exists distinguishing the case of the present petitioner from that of the acquitted co-accused. Rather, the prosecution evidence has further weakened the very foundation of the prosecution case. Consequently, permitting the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Page No.# 7/7 17. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is intended, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. Once the prosecution evidence itself has failed to disclose any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, and the co-accused standing on the same footing has already been acquitted after a full-fledged trial, compelling the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial would be wholly unjustified. Continuation of the proceeding would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2021 taking cognizance in G.R. Case No. 82/2020 (PRC No. 84/2021), arising out of Haflong P.S. Case No. 47/2020, insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby set aside and quashed. 18. Interim order dated 03.03.2023 stands merged with this order. 19. The instant criminal petition, accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Kumar Deka Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar Deka Date: 2026.08.07 15:27:32 +05'30'