Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 15.04.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 15 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:353
Serial No.03
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.85/2025
Date of Order: 15.04.2026
Smti. Talat Nazia Begum ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by Law Department,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. Smti. Hasina Khatoon ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr.Adv with
Ms. C. Rapsang, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr.GA with
Mrs. I. Lyngwa, GA
Mr. S. Panthi, Adv for R/2
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.
Page 1 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
3. Learned Sr.GA waives notice on behalf of the respondent
No.1 and Mr. S. Panthi waives notice on behalf of the respondent
No.2.
4. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of
the respondent No.2 (original complainant), seeks quashing of
the FIR registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station being P.S.
Case No.138(10) of 2023 and the chargesheet, being chargesheet
No.8 of 2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Section
498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
admittedly the petitioner, sister-in-law of the respondent No.2
(original complainant), lives separately in Assam and not in the
matrimonial home of the respondent No.2. He submitted that
taking the prosecution case as it stands from the
FIR/chargesheet, no offences as alleged are disclosed qua the
petitioner. He submits that having regard to the judgment of the
Apex Court in State of Haryana & ors v. Bhajanlal & ors
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, there is no impediment in
Page 2 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
quashing the proceeding i.e., the FIR/chargesheet qua the
petitioner.
6. Learned Sr.GA appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed
the petition. She submitted that the FIR as well as the statement
recorded under Section 161 CrPC of the respondent No.2
discloses the alleged acts of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also opposed the
petition. He submitted that the statement of the respondent No.2
recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the FIR lodged by the
respondent No.2 also discloses the nature of allegations made by
the respondent No.2 against the petitioner.
8. A few facts as are necessary to decide the petition are as
under.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sister-in-law of the
respondent No.2. The petitioner is a married lady residing in
Sonitpur District, Assam whereas, the respondent No.2 was
residing with her husband and in-laws in East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong. It is the respondent No.2’s case, that she got
Page 3 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
married to the petitioner’s brother in Shillong on 16th December,
2022 and that right from the beginning, the marriage ran into
rough weather over demand of dowry. According to the
respondent No.2 (original complainant), her husband and in-
laws were demanding dowry from her and also ill-treating her for
not complying with the demand. Pursuant to the same, the
respondent No.2 lodged an FIR with the Lumdiengjri Police
Station as against her husband, in-laws including the petitioner
alleging offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, chargesheet was
filed as against all the accused, including the petitioner.
10. Perused the FIR and the chargesheet annexed to the
petition. In the FIR, the respondent No.2 has made specific
allegations against her husband and mother-in-law. As far as
the petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 is
concerned, there is a general allegation stating that i.e., her
husband and in-laws demanded dowry in cash and jewelleries.
Admittedly, no specific instances are spelt out in the FIR or in
the 161 statement vis-Ã -vis dowry demand by the petitioner.
Page 4 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
Infact, even from a perusal of the statement recorded under
Section 161 CrPC of the respondent No.2, it is evident that there
is not a whisper vis-Ã -vis dowry demand by the petitioner from
the respondent No.2 or her parents. The only allegation made by
the respondent No.2 against the petitioner is that at the time of
marriage, the petitioner stated that the food arrangement was
not good, and had she been a neighbour, they would have
stopped the wedding and take the groom back. The other
allegation is with respect to some call received by the respondent
No.2 on 20th April, 2023. Admittedly, the said call was not made
by the petitioner. The allegation made by the respondent No.2
against the petitioner is that when she received a call making
filthy allegation against her, she called the petitioner and
disclosed to her that she had received an unknown call and the
person on the said call was abusing her in filthy language. The
respondent No.2 has further in her 161 statement stated that
the petitioner told her that her brother’s phone had been
hacked. The respondent No.2 has further alleged that in March,
2023, she overheard the petitioner discussing with her mother
Page 5 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
(mother-in-law of the respondent No.2) about separation
between her (respondent No.2) and her husband.
11. The allegations as stated aforesaid, are the only
allegations against the petitioner. Thus, taking the prosecution
case as it stands, no offences either under Section 498A of the
IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out qua
the petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law of the respondent
No.2. None of the ingredients as are necessary to constitute an
offence under Section 498A of the IPC or under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act are disclosed in the FIR/chargesheet.
Apart from the aforesaid, nothing was pointed out either by the
learned Sr.GA or by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2
to show the involvement of the petitioner in the said case i.e.,
demand for dowry by the petitioner or cruelty as defined in
Section 498A of the IPC. Thus, keeping in mind the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and taking
the prosecution case as its stand, no offences as alleged are
disclosed qua the petitioner.
Page 6 of 7
2026:MLHC:353
12. Accordingly, the FIR bearing P.S. Case No.138 (10) of 2023
registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station and consequently,
the chargesheet being chargesheet No.8 of 2024 are quashed
and set aside.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made
absolute on the aforesaid terms.
14. Petition stands disposed of.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
15.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.17 20:12:57 IST
