Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 06.03.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 6 March, 2026
2026:MLHC:164
Serial No.02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.88/2025
Date of Order: 06.03.2026
Shri Cleophas B. Syiem .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by its Public Prosecutor/
Government Advocate, Meghalaya.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District Nongpoh,
Meghalaya.
3. Officer-in-Charge, Nongpoh Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District,
Meghalaya.
4. The Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh,
Meghalaya.
5. Smti. Asha Wallang ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. K. Khan, AAG with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.PP
Mr. KC Gautam, Adv for R/5
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Page 1 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
proceeding initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi
District, Nongpoh, under Section 126 read with Section 164 of
the BNSS i.e., quashing of the Executive Proceeding No.2 of
2025.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid
petition are as under:
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 had filed
a Title Suit, being Title Suit No.2(T) of 2024 in the name of Smti.
Agnes Wallang, claiming to be her power of attorney holder. The
said suit is pending before the Court of the Assistant to the
Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) at Nongpoh, with respect to a
land, which is the bone of contention between the petitioner and
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
the respondent No.5. In the said proceeding, a status quo order
has been passed. It appears from a perusal of the orders that the
respondent No.5, after passing of the status quo order, had filed
an application alleging illegal encroachment by the petitioner,
however, despite the said allegation, the earlier order of status
quo was continued.
6. It is the petitioner’s case, that the respondent No.5 at the
time of filing of the civil suit, had also preferred an application
seeking an injunction and for restraining the petitioner
(defendant No.1 in the title suit) from interfering in the subject
land, however, the civil court had refused to pass an injunction
or a restraining order against the petitioner (defendant No.1) and
that the court had directed the parties to maintain status quo;
and that the said status quo order continues till date.
7. It is also the petitioner’s case that the respondent No.5
having failed to obtain an injunction and restraining order
against the petitioner, adopted other means to get some order.
Accordingly, it is alleged that the respondent No.5 lodged an FIR
as against the petitioner and also approached the learned
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, by filing a
complaint with the Executive Magistrate alleging trespass,
assault and violence by the petitioner in the property in
question. The respondent No.5 is also alleged to have made
allegations of continuous threat to the peaceful possession of the
respondent No.5. Thus, according to the petitioner, the
respondent No.5 alleged breach of peace by the petitioner before
the Executive Magistrate and sought appropriate action/order
under Section 167 of the BNSS and by way of an interim prayer,
the respondent No.5 prayed that pending disposal of the inquiry,
a restraint order be passed against the petitioner/notice, from
entering into the land in question and interfering with the
peaceful possession etc.
8. The petitioner in this petition has made several allegations
with respect to the conduct and the manner in which the
Executive Magistrate exhibited bias and proceeded to pass
orders, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to even
peruse the inquiry report which was submitted by the police to
the Executive Magistrate. Thus, according to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, despite the fact, that the Executive Magistrate
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
had no jurisdiction to proceed with the proceeding, being
Executive Proceeding No.2 of 2025, as the civil suit was pending
and there being an order of status quo in the title suit, the
Executive Magistrate entertained the respondent No.5’s
complaint.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposed the
petition. He submitted that no interference was warranted in the
proceeding initiated by the Executive Magistrate. Learned AAG
also opposed the petition.
10. Having perused the petition and which fact is not disputed
is, i.e., there is a civil proceeding pending between the parties
before the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner
(Judicial), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, with respect to the land. It
is also not in dispute that there is a status quo order passed in
the said suit, which has been continued from time to time,
despite, the respondent No.5 having filed an application alleging
flouting of the said status quo order by the petitioner. It appears
that according to the petitioner, he is in possession of the
Page 5 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
property in question, whereas, according to the respondent No.5,
she is in possession of the property in question.
11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is a civil suit
pending between the parties and there is a status quo order
passed by the said court from time to time.
12. The Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State
of U.P. & ors reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427, has held that
when a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein
the question of possession is involved and the parties are in a
position to approach the civil court for interim orders, such as
injunction or appointment of a receiver for adequate protection
of the property during pendency of the dispute, there is no
justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under
Section 145, CrPC (now 164 of BNSS). The Apex Court after
noting that multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the
parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over
meaningless litigation nor can parallel proceeding continue,
quashed the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC. Similarly, in
Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & anr reported in
Page 6 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
(2000) 4 SCC 440, the Apex Court held in Ram Sumer Puri
Mahant‘s case that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided as
it is not in the interest of the parties to waste time over
meaningless litigation. It further held in paragraph 14 as under:
“14. Reliance has been placed on the case of
Jhummamal v. State of M.P. It is submitted that this
authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is
pending does not mean that proceedings
under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code
should be set at naught. In our view this authority
does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this
case the proceedings under Section 145 of the
Criminal Procedure Code had resulted in a concluded
order. Thereafter the party, who had lost, filed civil
proceedings. After filing the civil proceedings he
prayed that the final order passed in the Section
145 proceedings be quashed. It is in that context that
this Court held that merely because a civil suit had
been filed did not mean that the concluded Order
under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code
should be quashed. This is entirely a different
situation. In this case the civil suit had been filed
first. An Order of status quo had already been
passed by the competent civil court.
Thereafter Section 145 proceedings were
commenced. No final order had been passed in
the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on
the facts of the present case the ratio laid down
in Ram Sumer case fully applies. We clarify that
we are not stating that in every case where a civil
suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never
lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for
possession or for declaration of title in respect of
the same property and where reliefs regarding
protection of the property concerned can be
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:164applied for and granted by the civil court that
proceedings under Section 145 should not be
allowed to continue. This is because the civil
court is competent to decide the question of title
as well as possession between the parties and the
orders of the civil Court would be binding on the
Magistrate”. (emphasis supplied)
13. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the
civil case was instituted first in point of time and that there is a
status quo order passed in the said suit, which was continued
from time to time. It also appears that on receipt of respondent
No.5’s complaint, the Executive Magistrate had called for a
police report which is annexed at page 164 of the petition. The
police report evidences pending civil cases and the FIRs initiated
by the parties against each other and the dispute with respect to
ownership of land. It is also noted in the report that on 2nd
December, 2025, when the police officer was preparing the
report for submitting the same before the Executive Magistrate,
he received a call from respondent No.5 on his mobile and
during the conversation, the respondent No.5-Smt. Asha
Wallang requested him to help her in the ongoing land dispute
between herself and Shri C.B. Syiem and that Smt. Asha
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
Wallang offered to pay any amount of money in return for the
help so extended. It is stated in this regard that an FIR has been
registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the
Khanapara Police Station against Smt. Asha Wallang for
attempting to bribe a government servant and that the
investigation is underway. (It may be noted, that the said
allegation of offering money has been refuted by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.5). In conclusion, it is
noted in the police report that having regard to the records,
ongoing disputes, necessary directions be issued to both the
parties for maintaining law and peace in the area or from
indulging in any illegal activities or making any changes to the
disputed land.
14. As noted above, it is pertinent to note that action was
taken by the Executive Magistrate only qua the petitioner and
not the respondent No.5, and that the said action was taken
despite being aware of the pending civil litigation between the
parties and the order of the civil court directing the parties to
maintain status quo.
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:164
15. Hence, in the facts and having regard to what is stated
hereinabove, the proceeding impugned in this petition i.e.
Executive Proceeding No.2 of 2025, pending before the Executive
Magistrate cannot be sustained and as such is quashed and set
aside.
16. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
17. Petition is accordingly allowed and is disposed of.
18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
06.03.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.03.10 17:26:28 IST