Meghalaya High Court
Service No. Dcrb/Ngn/2021/08/ vs State Of Meghalaya on 21 February, 2026
2026:MLHC:94
Serial No.01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Date of hearing :16.02.2026
Crl. Petn. No.02 of 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2026
Service No. DCRB/NGN/2021/08/11
Mohammad Rizwan,
Aged about 30 years
Sub-Inspector, Meghalaya Police,
S/o- Mohammad Saimullah,
R/o- Happy Valley, Shillong,
Meghalaya.
.....Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Meghalaya,
Through the Public Prosecutor,
The High Court of Meghalaya,
At Shillong.
-And-
2. Mrs. Jahanara Khatun,
D/o- Md. Sikandar Ali,
R/o- Aftabudin Lane, Ward 10,
Bidyapara Dabri, Dhubri,
Assam-783301. .....Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv with
Mr. E. Laloo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP, (R-1)
Ms. N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv (R-2)Page 1 of 9
2026:MLHC:94Judgment and Order
1. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. E.
Laloo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. H. Kharmih, learned
Addl. PP. appearing for the State-respondent No.1 and Ms. N.M.
Kharshemlang, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
1973 (for short Cr.PC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated
19.09.2023 filed by the respondent No.2 addressed to the Superintendent of
Police, East Khasi Hills District, registered as the Madanriting Police Station
Case No. 103 (10) of 2023 u/s 376/ 498A/ 506 IPC read with Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The petitioner is serving as a Sub-Inspector in Meghalaya Police. He
got married to the respondent No.2 on 08.06.2023 under the Muslim Personal
Law. The marriage was solemnized at their ancestral village in Bihar. After,
about 10 days of the marriage, they came to Shillong along with other family
members of the petitioner and started residing in the rented house of the
petitioner situated at Happy Valley, Shillong. On 07.08.2023 the respondent
No.2 left Shillong with her father and sister to her parental home. Thereafter,
the FIR dated 19.09.2023 was lodged against the petitioner and his family
members by the respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, East Khasi
Hills District, which was subsequently registered at the Madanriting Police
Station. For the sake of facility, the FIR is extracted below: –
“With due respect and humble honor, I Jahanara Khatun,
w/o- Sub-Inspector bearing Service no: DCRB/NGN/2021/08/11
Mohammad Rizwan, resident of 298 Shillong, Happy Valley,
A.R. Bazar, East Khasi Hills- 793007 Shillong, Meghalaya, and
permanent resident of Aftabudin Lane, Ward 10, Bidyapara
Dabri, Dhubri, Assam-783301.
Sir, I want to state that we were married on 8/06/2023
at our village Hanumanganj Katalpur, P.S- Mashrak, district-
Saran Bihar, were his family had lie everything about them self
Page 2 of 9
2026:MLHC:94and during the marriage, their family had asked for huge dowry
along with Royal Enfield bike, and had demanded gold
ornaments for the guy and they give us warning that if my father
wont full-fill their demand they would refused the marriage by
which my father was forced to give them during marriage. But
after marriage my mother in law, took all my gold ornaments
that my parents and relatives give me in wedding. After 10 days
of marriage I was taken by them to Shillong and were I was
thinking that whatever happened in Bihar it wont happen here
and my husband would be happy as his all desires was full-fill
by my father, but Mohammad Rizwan was forcing me every night
and was raping me brutally, even if I stop him and sought for
help no one stand out for me in the house, his family use to lock
me inside the house and treat me as an animal, were I was not
allow to talk with anyone, or to see anybody, and if by mistake
the neighbor show me or try to talk with me my in laws along
with my sister in law raise their hands on me and abuse me and
my family, and since marriage they started to heated me and they
always abuse me and my family that what we have given them
my in laws along with my husband had even demanded all the
household items and furniture for the house, they had even
restricted me not to talk with my own family members after
marriage and whenever my husband abuse me or try to hit me I
try to reach to his parents, but nothing reach to their ears instead
they torture me in place of their son, He also has an affair with
another women know as ******* who is an advocate practicing
in Meghalaya and the whole family was aware of it. And the
same was confirmed by my husband that his father and mother
had spoil 3 life’s, and as such that I was married to him I have
to face all this.
As I was diagnosed with stone in my gall bladder, and during
checkup I was found that am pregnant, they force me to abort the
child and go for operation, but I denied to do so, my in laws
along with my husband had thrown me out of the house and
inform my father through call to take me away from Shillong.
Now he is threatens me to go for abortion, else he would give me
Divorce.
He also threatens me several times that he will kill me
along with the baby, and always stated that he is in police and
he can do anything and no one can do anything to him or to his
parents as I know how to save myself and family, all this things
are known to my in-laws too but it seems all the family members
are involved in this situation and they are supporting my
husband.
Page 3 of 9
2026:MLHC:94
So, I am hereby seeking your help to get justice and to
save my child from him and his family and request your good
self, to take necessary actions against him and his family as he
is being overconfident and show his power of being an S.I. (Sub
Inspector) in Meghalaya Police.
Please help me as I am helpless.”
4. The FIR dated 19.09.2023 was registered by the police as the
Madanriting Police Station Case No. 103(10) of 2023 initially u/s 498 A and
376 IPC, but after some progress of the investigation, Section 506 IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was added.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations made in the FIR are too vague and general in nature. There is no
mention of any specific instance of harassment of the respondent No.2 by the
petitioner requiring initiation of criminal investigation in the matter by the
police. He submits that the documents enclosed with the impugned FIR also
do not bring out any specific offensive act of the petitioner against the
respondent No.2. He submits that after the respondent No.2 deserted the
petitioner, an Intimation Report was submitted by the petitioner on 19.08.2023
to the Madanriting Police Station which would undoubtedly establish that the
filing of the impugned FIR was done by the respondent No.2 with an ulterior
motive to seek vengeance on the petitioner as a counterblast. The learned
Senior counsel submits that the oblique motive and intention of vengeance of
the respondent No.2 against the petitioner is also apparent as the impugned
FIR contains an allegation of extra-marital affairs by the petitioner. He further
contends that marital rape is not recognized in Indian law and, as such, Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) would not be attracted in the
present case. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Achin
Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, the learned
Senior counsel submits that if the petitioner is made to face a criminal
investigation on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on
record any specific instance of criminal conduct, it would amount to an abuse
Page 4 of 9
2026:MLHC:94of the process of law. He submits that there is not an iota of truth in the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and prays that the impugned FIR
dated 19.09.2023 and the related investigation of the Madanriting Police
Station Case No. 103 (10) of 2023 be quashed.
6. The learned Addl. PP. appearing for the State-respondent No.1, on the
other hand submits that the allegations made in the FIR involves serious
offence and the bills and payment receipts accompanying the FIR shows
existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner. He submits that the
allegation of mental and physical abuse and excessive dowry demand is very
serious and hence, any interference at this stage by this court would not be in
the interest of justice. He submits that though no charge-sheet has been
submitted in the case as yet, the investigation of the case is complete and the
statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC. during the course of the
investigation supports the allegations made in the FIR. The learned Addl. PP.
further submits that out of the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent No.2, a male child was born on 07.04.2024, but despite filing of a
petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the
respondent No.2, the petitioner is not taking any responsibility to maintain his
wife and the child. He submits that there are enough disclosures made in the
FIR and the allegations made therein are not general in nature. He, therefore,
submits that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and the instant
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the
FIR dated 19.09.2023 clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences by
the petitioner and the entire sequence of the events beginning from the date of
marriage, i.e. 08.06.2023 has been narrated therein. She submits that there is
specific mention of demand of substantial dowry items including cash in the
FIR. There is a clear disclosure in the FIR that the respondent No.2 was
subjected to persistent mental and physical cruelty immediately after thePage 5 of 9
2026:MLHC:94marriage. She further submits that the FIR reveals that the respondent No.2
was found to be pregnant during medical check-up, but the petitioner and his
family, instead of extending any support, was forcing her to undergo an
abortion. There was forceful sexual intercourse by the petitioner coupled with
threat of dire consequences. The learned counsel submits that all the
allegations taken together clearly make out specific continuous chain of events
indicating commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner commencing
right from the date of marriage. She submits that the materials enclosed with
the FIR support the allegations made in the FIR. She further submits that the
respondent No.2 was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to intolerable,
abusive and coercive behavior and threats of her husband and in-laws. She
contends that the documents annexed by the petitioner in the instant criminal
petition also clearly demonstrate that the respondent No.2 was compelled to
initiate proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, being CR (DV) Case No. 584/2023 before the Court at Dhubri. She, thus,
submits that the instant criminal petition is devoid of merits and deserves no
consideration by this Court.
8. Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties. Also
perused the written notes of submissions and the materials on record.
9. A bare reading of the FIR dated 19.09.2023 indicates that on the date
of marriage, the petitioner and his family members had asked for huge dowry
and warned that non-fulfillment of their demand would result in refusal of
performance of marriage which forced the father of the respondent No.2 to
satisfy the demand. There is also an allegation that the gold ornaments given
to the respondent No.2 by her parents and relatives were taken away from her
after the marriage. Even after about 10 days of the marriage, when the
respondent No.2 was taken to her matrimonial house at Shillong, she was
subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty, assault and was locked
inside the house. She was not allowed to talk to anyone, or to see anybody,Page 6 of 9
2026:MLHC:94and was also prevented from talking to her own family members. There was
also further demand for household items and furniture from the family of the
respondent No.2. The FIR further contains allegation of brutal sexual
intercourse by the petitioner and forcing the respondent No.2 to undergo
abortion when she was diagnosed as pregnant. The FIR states that because of
the respondent No.2’s refusal to undergo abortion, she was thrown out of her
husband’s house.
10. The decision of Achin Gupta (supra) cited by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner was rendered in a totally different situation than that
of the present case in hand. In the said case, the marriage was solemnized on
09.10.2008 and the FIR was lodged on 09.04.2021. That apart, it was also
brought to the notice of the Apex Court that the FIR dated 09.04.2021 came
to be lodged after a period of more than 11 months of filing of a divorce
petition and also a domestic violence case against the informant in the year
2019 and 2020 respectively. In the above circumstances, it was held that when
the jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of
wreaking vengeance, a duty is cast on the High Court to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above
the averments made in the FIR/Complaint.
11. Read in the above light, what requires to be taken notice in the present
case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was
solemnized on 08.06.2023. They moved to Shillong after about 10 days of
their marriage and started residing in the rented house of the petitioner along
with the other family members of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 left the
house of the petitioner on 07.08.2023 and the FIR came to be lodged on
19.09.2023. The entire chain of events took place within a span of only around
3 months 10 days. Thus, in the backdrop of the above facts, it cannot be saidPage 7 of 9
2026:MLHC:94that the allegations made in the FIR are totally non-specific or too general in
nature and that it does not refer to any particular incident. Moreover, there is
nothing on record to show that the respondent No.2 has filed the FIR dated
19.09.2023 after institution of any legal proceeding against her by the
petitioner or his family members. Hence, it cannot be held that the lodging of
the FIR by the respondent No.2 came as a counterblast.
12. Insofar as the Intimation Report dated 19.08.2023 is concerned, the
petitioner in his written argument has asserted that the said Intimation Report
was registered as the Madanriting Police Station Case No. 108(11) of 2023
u/s 380/506 IPC and as such, the filing of the impugned FIR by the respondent
No.2 is nothing but a counterblast to the said Intimation Report. However, a
perusal of the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the instant
criminal petition reveals that the Intimation Report was not registered as a
case. The stand taken, as such, appears to be totally contradictory and
therefore, deserves no consideration by this Court. In addition, from the
registration numbers assigned to the FIR of the respondent No.2 and the
Intimation Report of the petitioner, it is clear that the FIR of the respondent
No.2 was registered before the Intimation Report of the petitioner came to be
registered. The case number assigned to the FIR of the respondent No.2 is 103
(10) of 2023 whereas, the case number assigned to the Intimation Report of
the petitioner is 108(11) of 2023. As a common practice, the numbers
indicated in the brackets refer to the month of registration of the case by the
police. It means that the FIR filed by the respondent No.2 was registered in
the month of October (10th month of the year) whereas, the Intimation Report
of the petitioner was registered in the month of November (11 th month of the
year). Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the FIR of the
respondent No.2 came to be registered after the Intimation Report of the
petitioner.
13. The contention of the petitioner that Section 376 IPC would not have
Page 8 of 9
2026:MLHC:94any application in the present case appears to have some force. Under
Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man
with his own wife, the wife not being a minor, is not considered rape. In the
present case, it is an admitted position that the respondent No.2 is not a minor.
However, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire FIR dated
19.09.2023 as it contains allegations of commission of other offences also. It
is expected that the investigating authority would consider the above aspect
of law at the time of preparation of the final report of investigation in the
present matter.
14. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to make
out a case for quashing of the FIR dated 19.09.2023 and the related
Madanriting P.S Case No. 103 (10) of 2023.
15. Resultantly, the criminal petition stands dismissed.
Judge
Meghalaya
21.02.2026
“Shrity,PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SHRITY
CH MOMIN Page 9 of 9
Date: 2026.02.21 11:05:59 IST
