Meghalaya High Court
Prof. Jyoti J. Mozika vs Shillong on 29 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:401
Serial No. 4
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 57 of 2026 with
Crl.Petn. No. 59 of 2026
Crl.Petn. No. 60 of 2026
Date of order: 29.07.2026
Prof. Jyoti J. Mozika
...Petitioner
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Shillong.
2. The In-Charge, Mawkynroh Police Outpost,
Shillong 793022, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Amit Mani Tripathi, Student 10th Semester,
Department of Law, North-Eastern Hill University,
Shillong.
...Respondents
AND
Dr Naveen Kumar
...Petitioner
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Shillong.
2. The In-Charge, Mawkynroh Police Outpost,
Shillong 793022, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Amit Mani Tripathi, Student 10th Semester,
Department of Law, North-Eastern Hill University,
Shillong.
...Respondents
AND
Page 1 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
Dr Ravi Kant Mishra
...Petitioner
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Shillong.
2. The In-Charge, Mawkynroh Police Outpost,
Shillong 793022, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Amit Mani Tripathi, Student 10th Semester,
Department of Law, North-Eastern Hill University,
Shillong.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr S. Sen, Adv. with
Mr M.U. Ahmed, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr A. Kumar, AG with
Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl Sr GA
Mr P. Yobin, Adv. [for R3]
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all the
aforesaid petitions as well as learned Advocate General on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 3 in all the petitions.
Page 2 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
2. At the outset, this Court makes it clear, that all the
aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment,
as the subject matter of challenge is identical i.e., same
FIR/order has been challenged.
3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petitions are taken up for final
disposal.
4. By these petitions, the petitioners therein, seek quashing
of the FIR registered at the behest of the respondent No. 3 with
the Mawlai Police Station being Mawlai P.S. Case No. 28 (3) 2026
qua the aforesaid petitioners for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 351(2)/115(2) of the BNS.
5. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i.e.,
the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 have amicably resolved
their dispute, inasmuch as the respondent No. 3 has given his
no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid proceeding initiated
at his behest as against the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions.
Page 3 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
6. The respondent No. 3 (original complainant) lodged a
complaint with the Mawlai Police Station alleging the aforesaid
offences. The said complaint is at page 68 of the petition. The
concerned Officer forwarded the said complaint “for registering a
cognizable case under appropriate section of law” without
applying his own mind whether a cognizable case is made out or
not in the facts. The said order shows complete non-application
of mind and also non-compliance of the Apex Court judgment in
Lalita Kumari v Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014)
2 SCC 1. Pursuant thereto, the concerned Officer registered a
case as NCR. When the matter came up before the learned
Magistrate, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.03.2026,
observed that “having heard the informant and perusing the
material I am of the consideration that there is a prima facie case
against the accused person under certain provisions of law”
and accordingly, directed registration of an FIR. It is this order
directing registration of an FIR, which is impugned before this
Court. Again, the learned Magistrate failed to apply her mind by
observing “under certain provisions of law”. The learned Judge
has failed to follow, not only due procedure but even failed to
Page 4 of 8
2026:MLHC:401consider what were the sections that could have been appliable
in the facts. Thus, this order is completely flawed.
7. Be that as it may, since the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and the respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit, it
is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, except
observing the manner in which the Police and the Magistrate
dealt with the respondent No. 3’s complaint. The respondent No.
3 has filed an affidavit in all the aforesaid petitions. He has
stated that he had filed the said FIR owing to an emotional
outburst emanating from various occasions which he perceived
that the professors are against him; that the said thoughts
against the professors were his own misperceptions and
assumptions and as such, he does not desire to nurture any ill-
feelings against the professors in whatever manner; and that
having realised the same, he does not wish to pursue the
complaint against the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 has
further undertaken that he will not at any time in future file any
form of complaint against the said professors relating to the
same issue or subject matter. The respondent No. 3 has further
stated in his affidavit that he will complete his law degree as an
Page 5 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
obedient and dedicated student and leave the campus on
obtaining the law degree. The respondent No. 3 is present in
person. He reiterates what has been stated in the affidavit and
states that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Mr.
P. Yobin, learned counsel has identified the respondent No. 3,
who is present in Court.
8. Considering the amicable settlement between the parties
and what is stated hereinabove, and having regard to the
judgments of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & ors
v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several
other cases, there is no impediment in allowing the petitions.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the FIR registered
with the Mawlai Police Station being Mawlai P.S. Case No. 28 (3)
2026 is quashed and set aside.
9. Infact, Mr A. Kumar, learned Advocate General also very
fairly stated that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3
with the Police, could not have been directed to be registered as
an FIR “under appropriate sections of law” and that such
Page 6 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
approach clearly cannot be countenanced in law. He further also
has assailed the manner in which the learned Magistrate passed
the impugned order to register an FIR “under certain provisions
of law.” He submits that both, the said orders passed by the
Officers as well as the Magistrate clearly reflect non-application
of mind. He states that he will take appropriate steps to ensure
that such orders are not passed by Police Officers and the law
relating when an FIR can be registered, will be circulated to all
Officers in the State of Meghalaya. Statement accepted.
10. Needless to state, having regard to the peculiar facts, any
complaint by the respondent No. 3 in future against the
petitioners shall be placed before the Superintendent of Police,
East Khasi Hills, before any steps are taken on the complaint, if
filed by the respondent No. 3. Mr A. Kumar, learned Advocate
General, to forward a copy of this Order to the Superintendent
of Police, East Khasi Hills District.
11. Petitions are allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
Page 7 of 8
2026:MLHC:401
12. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
13. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.07.30 18:14:59 IST
