Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Andrew A Jyrwa vs . 1.State Of Meghalaya, Represented By on 27 June, 2025
2025:MLHC:550
Serial No.10
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn No. 125 of 2023 Date of Order: 27.06.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri. Andrew A Jyrwa Vs. 1.State of Meghalaya, represented by
S/o- Shri R Nongrum the Superintendent of Police, East
R/o- Laitumkhrah, Nongrimbah, Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
Block-5, House No.9,
East Khasi Hills District, 2.The Deputy commissioner, East
Meghalaya. District, Shillong-1, Meghalaya.
3. The Executive Magistrate, East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong-1,
Meghalaya.
4. The Officer in Charge,
Laitumkhrah Police Station, East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong,
Pin- 793003, Meghalaya.
5. Smti Philamon Mawrie
D/o-(L) Smti. Twilsimai Mawrie,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong- 793003,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
.....Petitioner. .....Respondents.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Syngkon, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, GA (R: - 1 to 4)
None for (R: - 5)
Page 1 of 5
2025:MLHC:550
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
By this criminal petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 06-11-2023 passed in C.R. Case No. 73(A) 2022, under Section
145/107 Cr.P.C by the Executive Magistrate, East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong and also prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding pending
before the learned Executive Magistrate.
1. The fact narrated in the present petition reveals that the petitioner is
holding the office of the Headman of the Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong
Pyllun. Due to the dispute between the Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong and
the respondent No.5 over a plot of land known as “Madan Iewrynghep”,
the respondent No. 5 filed WP(C) No. 519 of 2022 before this High Court.
By order dated 15-02-2023, the High Court did not entertain the writ
petition and observed that the matter involved title dispute between the
contesting parties requiring adjudication by a competent civil court. On
appeal, a Division Bench of this High Court by order dated 09-06-2023
passed in WA No. 5/2023 declined to interfere with the order dated 15-02-
2023 and further directed that status quo should be maintained in the
sense that the land in question would be permitted to be used as a play
ground and, in very exceptional case, subject to the previous permission
of the Deputy Commissioner, the odd fair may be allowed, but that should
not exceed more than two a year till such time that the dispute as to title
was resolved by the appropriate forum. It was provided that if no suit was
instituted in respect of the land within a period of three months, the order
dated 12-11-2022 of the Deputy Commissioner, which was the subject
matter of challenge in the writ petition, would hold the field.
Subsequently, the T.S. No. 30 of 2023 along with Misc. Case No. 77 of
2023 was instituted by the respondent No.5 in respect of the land in
Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:550
question before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong. The
learned Trial Court by order dated 09-11-2023 directed the parties to
abide by the stipulations made in the order dated 09-06-2023 passed in
WA No. 5/2023. In the midst of all this development, the learned
Executive Magistrate, Shillong passed the impugned order dated 06-11-
2023 in CR Case No. 73 (A)2022 u/S 145/107 Cr.P.C which is under
challenge in this revision petition.
2. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 06-11-2023 was passed by the Executive
Magistrate mechanically without realizing the fact that the petitioner is not
involved in the matter in his personal capacity. He submits that the
petitioner is only discharging his role as the Headman to protect the
interest and welfare of the locality and, in such a situation, the passing of
the order dated 06-11-2023 is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. He
further submits that as there is already a civil suit pending between the
petitioner and the respondent No.5 involving the land in question, there is
no requirement of continuation of CR Case No. 73 (A)2022. By placing
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court dated 01-11-2022 in Mohd.
Abid & Ors. Vs. Ravi Naresh & Ors., the learned Counsel submits that
once there is a proceeding pending in the civil court concerning a
particular plot of land, any proceeding u/S 145/107 Cr.P.C initiated in
respect of the same plot of land must come to an end. He, therefore,
submits that no meaningful purpose would be served by allowing the
proceeding of C.R. Case No. 73(A) 2022, u/S 145/107 Cr.P.C to continue
and prays for quashing of the same.
3. Mr. S. Sen, learned GA, on the other hand, does not dispute the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that since
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:550
there is already a civil suit pending between the petitioner and the
respondent No.5 and some sort of interim direction has been passed in the
said civil suit, the State-respondent will not have any objection if the
proceeding of C.R. Case No.73(A) 2022 comes to an end.
4. None appears for the respondent No.5.
5. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that
pursuant to the order dated 09-06-2023 passed in WA 5/2023 the
respondent No.5 instituted T.S. No. 30 of 2023 along with Misc. Case No.
77 of 2023 before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong laying
her claim over the plot of land known as “Madan Iewrynghep”. The
Dorbar Shnong Laitumkhrah has been arrayed as a party defendant to the
said suit. It also appears that an interim order dated 09-11-2023 has also
been passed in the Misc. Case No. 77 of 2023. Therefore, it is clear that
the dispute between the parties stands seized by the civil court. Since, the
controversy between the parties over the suit land is pending for
adjudication in the civil suit, legally there is no requirement of a parallel
proceeding u/S 145/107 Cr.P.C.
6. The Apex Court in Mohd. Abid & Ors. (supra) at para 4 held: –
“4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have
already field a suit for injunction in which ex-parte ad interim
injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized
of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings
under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come
to an end. The inter se rights of the parties regarding title or
possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil
Court.”
Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:550
7. It follows from the above that dispute with regard to the title or
possession between the parties is eventually to be determined by the civil
court. Hence, this Court finds it fit to allow the prayer made by the
petitioner in this case. Resultantly, the order dated 06-11-2023 passed by
the learned Executive Magistrate, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and
the entire proceeding of the C.R. Case No. 73(A) 2022 u/S 145/107 Cr.P.C.
stands quashed.
8. The criminal petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya
27.06.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.06.27 18:42:11 IST