Meghalaya High Court
1.Shri. Diphrin Nongrum. vs . 1. The State Of Meghalaya, on 29 July, 2025
2025:MLHC:652
Serial No.24
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 28 of 2025 Date of Order: 29.07.2025
____________________________________________________________
1.Shri. Diphrin Nongrum. Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya,
S/o Shri Robes Nongbri Represented by the Secretary and
Headman of Mawpun Village Commissioner Home Police
Raid Madan Kyrdem, Department Govt. of Meghalaya
Khyrim Syiemship. Shillong.
Ri-Bhoi District,
Meghalaya. 2. The Superintendent of Police,
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Iohborlang Mukhim
S/o Sibrin Lyngdoh 3. The Officer-in-Charge,
Secretary of Mawpun Village Umiam Police Station, Ri-Bhoi
Raid Madan Kyrdem, District Meghalaya.
Khyrim Syiemship.
Ri-Bhoi District, 4. Smti. Baniaiphira L. Marbaniang
Meghalaya. D/o Smti Airain Lyngdoh
Marbaniang
R/o Mawpun Village
Assistant Secretary Seng Khasi
Mawpun (Kyrdem)
.....Petitioners. ......Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioners/Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Khyriem, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. A. Sheikh, GA. (R:1 – 3)
Mr. G. J. Nongphud. (R: 4)(JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL))
Heard Mr. B. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 – 3 and Mr. G. J.
2025:MLHC:652
Nongphud, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
1. The present criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners
praying for quashing of the FIR No. 69 (10) 2021 dated 05.10.2021 filed
before the Umiam police station and the related charge-sheet No. 1/2022
dated 07-01-2022 u/S 447/153-A/34 IPC on the basis of a deed of
settlement/compromise dated 07.05.2025 entered into between the Seng
khasi (Niamtrai) Mawpun and the Dorbar Shnong Mawpun represented by
the petitioners.
2. The fact of the case is that the respondent No.4, who was the
Assistant Secretary of Seng Khasi Mawpun, had lodged an FIR dated
05.10.2021 before the Officer-in-Charge, Umroi PIC against the petitioners
alleging that the petitioners had tried to stop the respondent No.4 to
participate in the proceeding of the Dorbar and also decided to remove the
pillars/boundaries and signboards from the cremation ground/jaka tep of the
Seng Khasi/ Niam Khasi situated at village Mawpun (Kyrdem). It was also
alleged that the petitioners had issued dictate to other members of the
village to not to send their children to study in the Seng Khasi school at
Mawpun village. The said FIR was investigated into and upon completion
of the investigation, the matter was charge sheeted vide charge-sheet No.
1/2022 dated 07-01-2022 u/S 447/153-A/34 IPC against the petitioners and
forwarded the concerned Court. During the pendency of the matter before
the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Nongpoh, the petitioners and the
respondent No.4 amicably settled the matter by executing a deed of
compromise dated 07-05-2025.
3. The respondent No.4 has also filed an affidavit on 28-07-2025 by
asserting that since the boundary dispute of the cremation ground in
question was resolved by way of compromise agreement consented by her,
she has no objection if the FIR and the charge-sheet are quashed by this
Court.
2025:MLHC:652
4. Mr. B. Khyriem, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
during the pendency of the trial before the Court of the Magistrate First
Class, Nongpoh, the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 have amicably
settled/compromised the matter by a compromise deed dated 07.05.2025.
He submits that since the matter has been compromised, no meaningful
purpose will be served by allowing the continuation of the criminal case
against the petitioners. He further submits that the allegation made in the
FIR was because of some misunderstanding between the parties having no
serious impact on the society. He submits that the settlement in the matter
will bury all hatchet and result in building harmonious relation between the
parties. The learned counsel submits that the offence involved in the matter
is a non-compoundable offence and hence, the petitioners have no other
option but to approach this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the
related criminal proceeding initiated against the him. He further submits
that the parties have executed the compromise deed voluntarily out of their
own free will and prays that the FIR No. 69 (10) 2021 dated 05.10.2021
and the related charge-sheet No. 1/2022 dated 07-01-2022 u/S 447/153-
A/34 IPC be quashed.
5. Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 –
3 submits that since the matter has been settled amicably by the petitioners
and respondent No. 4, the State has no objection to the prayer made by the
petitioners.
6. Mr. G. J. Nongpud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
4 supports the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and also
acknowledges that the compromise deed dated 07.05.2025 has been
executed by the parties. He further submits that since the compromise has
been entered into between the parties to improve their future relationship,
the respondent Nos. 4 is not keen to pursue the matter anymore and will not
have any objection if the FIR and the Charge-sheet are quashed on the basis
2025:MLHC:652
of the settlement/compromise between the parties.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that during the pendency of
the matter before the Court of Magistrate First Class, Nongpoh, the dispute
between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 was amicably settled and
a compromise deed dated 07.05.2025 was executed between them laying
down the terms and conditions of the compromise. Contents of the
compromise deed reveals that the parties have decided to put an end to all
issues between them. It is also provided that the parties shall be faithful to
each other and not do or cause to be done any act either directly or
indirectly which may prejudice the other party. It further appears that the
petitioners and the respondent No. 4 are residents of Mawpun Village and
they are well known to each other. The content of the compromise deed
further crystalizes that the FIR was lodged due to fit of rage and
misunderstanding which if ended shall help bringing peaceful coexistence
between the parties. Thus, it is clear that the compromise would help the
parties to strengthen their relationship and the existence of cordial
atmosphere in the locality.
8. The decision of the Apex Court in Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab &
Anr (2013) 10 SCC 303 makes it clear that inherent power of the High
Court in quashing the criminal proceeding can be exercised on the basis of
compromise/settlement entered into between the parties found to be
genuine and no public element is involved in the matter. In the present case,
it appears that the allegation made in the FIR is specifically confined to the
petitioners and the respondent No. 4 and none others.
9. Having regard to the fact that the dispute with regard to the
allegation made in the FIR and the related charge sheet has been settled
between the petitioners and the private respondent No. 4 voluntarily out of
their own free will and the settlement/compromise is aimed at boosting
2025:MLHC:652
cordial and peaceful relationship between the parties, this Court deems it fit
and appropriate to allow the prayer made in the present criminal petition.
10. Resultantly, the FIR No. 69 (10) 2021 dated 05.10.2021 lodged
before the Umiam police station and the related charge-sheet No. 1/2022
dated 07-01-2022 u/S 447/153-A/34 IPC are hereby quashed.
11. The criminal petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya.
29.07.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.07.29 18:20:33 IST
[ad_1]
Source link