2026:Mlhc:485 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 20 May, 2026

    0
    34
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Meghalaya High Court

    2026:Mlhc:485 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 20 May, 2026

    Serial No.05
                                                         2026:MLHC:485
    Daily List
    
    
    
    
                            HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                   AT SHILLONG
    
            Crl.Petn.No.16/2026
                                               Date of Order: 20.05.2026
            1. Smti. Pelcy Snaitang
            2. Shri Kingborman Disiar
            3. Shri Belson Snaitang
            4. Shri Lurshai Snaitang
            5. Shri Khrawbor Snaitang
            6. Shri Amstrongphi Snaitang
            7. Shri Ominglan Shylla
            8. Shri Hamless Syiemlieh
            9. Shri Distoral Syiemlieh
            10. Shri Abester Lyngdoh
            11. Shri Peterson Snaitang
            12. Shri Anthony Snaitang
            13. Shri Shongdor Thongni
            14. Shri Armanroy Rangdikiew
            15. Shri Wesking Thongni
            16. Shri Lespingroi Syiemlieh
            17. Shri Plaiarstar Lartang
            18. Shri Umbos Snaitang
            19. Shri Baniakmenlang Syiemlieh
            20. Shri Rocky Sohlang
            21. Shri Wolan Shylla
            22. Shri Parman Kharmaw
            23. Smti. Purnima Snaitang
            24. Smti. Linti Snaitang
            25. Smti. Antina Snaitang
            26. Smti. Tipti Snaitang
    
                                                                   Page 1 of 7
                                                          2026:MLHC:485
    
    
    
    
    27. Smti. Shisha Snaitang
    28. Smti. Gracy Snaitang
    29. Shri Markhia Snaitang
    30. Shri Phorian Shylla
    31. Shri Plastic Sun
    32. Shri Shipstolin Snaitang
    33. Shri Lording Nongsiej
    34. Shri Sainkupar Snaitang                          ..... Petitioners
                                   Vs.
    1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by its Commissioner and
       Secretary (Home) Police Department, Government of
       Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
    2. The Superintendent of Police, South West Khasi Hills District,
       Meghalaya.
    3. Officer-in-Charge, Ranikor Police Station, South West Khasi
       Hills District, Meghalaya.
    4. Shri Donboklang Kharlyngdoh
    5. Shri Marius Nongsiej                         ..... Respondents
    Coram:
         Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
    
    Appearance:
    For the Petitioners    :    Mr. S. Thapa, Adv with
                                Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv
    
    For the Respondents :       Mr. A.S. Dey, GA
                                Mr. R.K. Synrem, Adv for R/4&5
    
    JUDGMENT:

    (Oral)

    Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    SPONSORED

    Page 2 of 7

    2026:MLHC:485

    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 petitioners seek quashing of the FIR

    registered with the Ranikor Police Station, being P.S. Case

    No.19(10) of 2024, as against the petitioners for the alleged

    offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(2) and 3(5) of

    the BNS.

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ states that taking the

    prosecution case as it stands, no offence whatsoever, under any

    of the aforesaid sections is disclosed. He submits that the

    parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana &

    ors v. Bhajan Lal & ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,

    is squarely attracted and as such, the FIR and consequently, the

    chargesheet and the proceeding pending before the learned

    Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat, be quashed and set

    aside.

    5. Learned GA opposed the petition. Similarly, learned

    counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 also opposed

    Page 3 of 7
    2026:MLHC:485

    the petition. It is submitted that the material on record would

    show the complicity of the petitioners and as such, no case is

    made out for quashing of the FIR/proceeding.

    6. Perused the papers i.e., the chargesheet. It is not in

    dispute that the Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills

    Autonomous District Council, Shillong, vide order dated 21st

    December, 2023, had passed an order in favour of the

    petitioners. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioners

    have rightly proved that Tlongpleng village was under the

    jurisdiction of the petitioners i.e., Hima Bhowal. Accordingly, the

    District Council observed, that the observations made in the

    order dated 19th June, 2023, passed by the One-man Tribunal

    was correct in law as well as in fact and deserved no interference

    by the Executive Committee. It is further noted that the Tribunal

    had made a detailed observation on the historical facts and past

    disputes dating way back in the year 1900 by the Panchayat Lai

    Syiem, the Political Case of 1926, which aligns that the

    boundary of these two Syiemship. In conclusion, both the Hima

    Maharam and Hima Bhowal (petitioners), were directed to

    comply and implement the said order.

    Page 4 of 7

    2026:MLHC:485

    7. It is also not in dispute that the said order passed by the

    District Council was challenged by one of the aggrieved parties

    before this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP (C) No.81 of

    2024. It appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court

    disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 15th April, 2026.

    Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the

    respondent Nos.4 and 5, whether the order dated 21st December,

    2023, passed by the District Council, is under challenge as of

    today. It is further an admitted fact, that the FIR of which

    quashing is sought, was registered by the police on 26th October,

    2024, alleging the offences of criminal trespass and mischief.

    8. Having perused the statements of the witnesses and in

    light of the order passed by the District Council, this Court does

    not find any ingredients of the offence of criminal trespass being

    made out qua the petitioners. Infact, there is no mention in the

    statement vis-à-vis trespass by the petitioners. Infact, the

    statements of the witnesses show that there was no damage

    caused to any of the loudspeakers which were removed. To the

    contrary, the statements show that the loudspeakers were

    removed and were handed over to the police. Thus, there is no

    Page 5 of 7
    2026:MLHC:485

    allegation of damage to property by any of the witnesses. In this

    view of the matter, no offence even under Section 324 (mischief)

    is made out.

    9. Thus, keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the

    Apex Court in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) and taking the

    prosecution case as it stands from the chargesheet, no offences

    either under Sections 329(3), 324(2) and 3(5) of the BNS are

    disclosed, warranting continuation of the proceeding qua the

    petitioners.

    10. Accordingly, the FIR registered with the Ranikor Police

    Station, being P.S. Case No.19(10) of 2024, the chargesheet and

    consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Judicial

    Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat, are quashed and set aside.

    11. The petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made

    absolute on the aforesaid terms.

    12. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

    Page 6 of 7

    2026:MLHC:485

    13. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

    (Revati Mohite Dere)
    Chief Justice

    Meghalaya
    20.05.2026
    “Lam DR-PS”

    Page 7 of 7
    Signature Not Verified
    Digitally signed by
    LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
    Date: 2026.05.20 16:14:32 IST



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here