21.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 21 May, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Order: 21.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 21 May, 2026

Serial No.06
                                                               2026:MLHC:500
Supplementary List




                           HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                  AT SHILLONG

        Crl.Petn.No.67/2026
                                                    Date of Order: 21.05.2026
        Manjeet Kaushal                                        ..... Petitioner
                                     Vs.
        State of Meghalaya, through the Superintendent of Police, CID,
        Meghalaya, Shillong                          ..... Respondent
        Coram:
             Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

        Appearance:
        For the Petitioner       :    Mr. R. Singh, Adv

        For the Respondent       :    Dr. N. Mozika, Special PP with
                                      Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv

        JUDGMENT:

(Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

SPONSORED

Special PP for the respondent.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“A. Quash and set aside the order dated 18.05.2026
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Shillong in G.R. Case No.130(S) of 2015;

B. Hold that the discharge application is required to be
decided only on the basis of the police report and
documents submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.;

C. Stay further proceedings in relation to Application Nos.
34 and 35 filed by the prosecution;

Page 1 of 5

2026:MLHC:500

D. Direct the transfer of the G.R. Case No.130(S) of 2015
to the ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate from the
present Court of Ld. Magistrate; and

E. Direct the Learned Trial Court to decide the discharge
application expeditiously and independently on day to day
basis of the prosecution applications concerning alleged
duplicate FSL reports and inspection of seized materials.”

3. At the outset, this Court may note that the learned

counsel for the petitioner does not press prayer clause ‘A’, since

this Court is inclined to expedite the hearing of the applications

filed by the prosecution as well as the discharge application filed

by the petitioner.

4. It is not in dispute that the FIR in the said case was

lodged sometime in April, 2013. It is also not in dispute that the

petitioner had filed a discharge application way back in 2015

and that the same is pending till date. It is also not in dispute

that the aforesaid applications were heard by the learned CJM in

the absence of the learned JMC, who was on leave and that the

said applications are now again placed before the learned

Magistrate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

discharge application, filed in November, 2015, is still pending
Page 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:500

before the concerned Court since 2015, for more than 10 years,

without any finality insight. He submits that the learned CJM in

the absence of the learned Magistrate had heard the discharge

applications on a few dates and when the learned Magistrate

resumed duties after medical leave, the same came to be

transferred to the learned Magistrate on 27th April, 2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is at this stage

that the learned Magistrate directed the prosecution to verify

whether the seized materials was available with them from the

list given in the chargesheet. It is the petitioner’s case, that the

said material was not part of the chargesheet. Learned counsel

submits that pursuant thereto, the prosecution filed an

application in May, 2026 seeking unlocking of Room No.86 of

the CID office, Shillong for verification of the seized materials. It

appears that there was another application filed by the

prosecution seeking a direction to the CFSL, Kolkata to issue a

certified copy of the FSL report alongwith hard-drives and pen-

drives to the prosecution. It is informed that the said

applications are pending before the learned Magistrate, till date.

Page 3 of 5

2026:MLHC:500

6. Considering that the discharge application is pending

since 2015 and that two applications have been filed by the

prosecution and also having regard to the fact, that the

discharge application was heard at some length, at some point of

time by the learned CJM, this Court deems it appropriate to

transfer G.R. Case No.130(S) of 2015 to the Court of the learned

CJM, in order to enable the learned CJM to decide the

application filed by the petitioner i.e., discharge application and

other connected discharge application, if any, as well as

applications filed by the prosecution as expeditiously as

possible. The learned CJM to deicide the applications filed by the

prosecution within two weeks from today. The discharge

application be decided thereafter within 8 weeks. If necessary,

the learned CJM to decide the case on day-to-day basis

considering that the discharge application is of 2015.

7. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid

terms.

8. It is made clear, that this Court has not gone into the

merits of the pending discharge applications or applications filed

Page 4 of 5
2026:MLHC:500

by the prosecution and as such, keep all contentions of all

parties on merits are kept open.

9. Needless to state, that all parties to cooperate with the

learned Judge in the expeditious disposal of the pending

applications. Needless to also state, that the transfer of the case

from the learned Magistrate to the learned CJM is not a

reflection on the conduct of the Magistrate, but only to ensure

expeditious disposal of the case by the learned CJM.

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

(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice

Meghalaya
21.05.2026
“Lam DR-PS”

Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.05.22 14:11:32 IST