Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Rana Ahmed vs . 1. State Of Meghalaya, Represented on 7 July, 2025
2025:MLHC:584
Serial No.19
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Petn. No.13 of 2025 Date of Order: 07.07.2025
_________________________________________________________
Shri. Rana Ahmed Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, Represented
S/o Shri C. N. Marak, by the Public Prosecutor
R/o Lower Rajapara,
P.S. Ranikor, 2. Shri. Andrew Hashah, son of
District- South West Shri L. Nongtnger, resident of
Khasi Hills, kulang Village, P.S. Nonghyllam,
Meghalaya. South West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalya.
.......Petitioner. .......Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : S. A. Sheikh, GA. (R:-1)
None for (R: 2).
Page 1 of 6
2025:MLHC:584
ORAL:-
Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned GA appearing for the
State-respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.2
despite service of due notice.
1. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting
aside and quashing of the order dated 04-02-2025 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat in G.R. Case No.
17/2022 and also for quashing of the entire proceeding of the
case pending before the same court.
2. The brief fact of the case is that an FIR dated 02.05.2022
was lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and
another before the Borsora Police Outpost alleging non-payment
of the amount agreed in the agreement dated 03.01.2022 which
was executed pursuant to a road accident on the same day at
Bagli village, South West Khasi Hills. Subsequently, the said
FIR was registered as Nonghyllam P.S. Case No. 7 (5) 2022
under Section 279/427 IPC and the matter was investigated into.
Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet dated 30-
09-2022 was filed by the police against the petitioner u/S 417
IPC r/w Section 180/192/192A/196/190 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. By the same charge-sheet, another person namely Shri
Saulus D Sangma was also charge-sheeted u/S 279/427 IPC r/w
Page 2 of 6
2025:MLHC:584
Section 181 MV Act. The petitioner, thereafter, was made to
face trial in G.R. Case No. 17/2022 in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat. It appears from the record
that when the case was pending for final hearing, due to
continuous non-appearance of the defence counsel, the learned
Trial Court by impugned order dated 04-02-2025 fixed the
matter on 26-02-2025 for pronouncement of final judgment
without hearing the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 04-02-2025, the petitioner is before this
Court by way of this criminal petition.
3. Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Trial Court was utterly wrong in passing the impugned order
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
defend his case before the Trial Court. The learned Counsel
submits that the petitioner’s right to be heard and defended in a
criminal trial is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be interfered
with even if there is a default on the part of the defence counsel.
In addition, he contends that even on merits, there is no case
against the petitioner as he was never a part of the agreement
allegedly executed between the parties involved in the road
accident dated 03-01-2022. He further submits that the
respondent No.2, had no locus standi to lodge the FIR in
question having no interest involved in the matter. The learned
Page 3 of 6
2025:MLHC:584
Counsel contends that the respondent No.2 is only a witness to
the alleged agreement dated 03-01-2022 and, in such a situation,
the Investigating Authority could not have registered the case
against the petitioner and proceeded to investigate the same.
The learned Counsel places reliance on a decision of the High
Court of Jharkhand dated 17-08-2021 passed in Cr. Revision No.
468 of 2012 and submits that even if there was no appearance of
the defence counsel, the Trial Court ought to have appointed an
amicus or a Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the petitioner for
disposal of the case. He, therefore, submits that the impugned
order dated 04-02-2025 and the entire proceeding of G.R. Case
No. 17/2022 cannot be sustained in law and liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned GA for the State-respondent
No.1, on the other hand, submits that it is too late for the
petitioner to come up with the prayer of quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding as the matter is now pending for final
hearing and pronouncement of judgment. He submits that the
impugned order dated 04-02-2025 was passed due to continuous
default of the defence counsel to appear before the Trial Court
for final hearing. The learned GA, however, in his usual
fairness, does not dispute the right of the petitioner to be heard
and defended in consonance with the provision of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and submits that the matter may be
Page 4 of 6
2025:MLHC:584
remanded back with a direction to the Trial Court to hear the
petitioner before final disposal of the matter.
5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the G.R. Case
No. 17/2022 has been proceeding in the Trial court all along
without any objection from the petitioner right from the initial
stage of the case. The trial has now almost reached its final
stage as it is pending for final hearing. Although, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has raised some pertinent questions
with regard to the locus standi of the respondent No.2 in lodging
the FIR and the investigation of the matter against the petitioner
as he was not a party to the alleged agreement dated 03-01-2022,
this Court is not inclined to deal with the issue as the same can
also be raised before the Trial Court at the final hearing of the
case. Since, the trial has almost reached its final stage, this
Court, at this juncture, does not find it appropriate to entertain
the prayer of the petitioner to quash the entire criminal
proceeding. However, as the petitioner has a right to be heard
and defended at the trial, the impugned order dated 04-02-2025
cannot be sustained in law. Even if there was a default on the
part of the defence counsel, the learned Trial Court could not
have victimized the petitioner by depriving him of his right of
taking part in the final hearing.
Page 5 of 6
2025:MLHC:584
6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated
04-02-2025 passed in G.R. Case No. 17/2022 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat is hereby set aside.
7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the next date of the G.R. Case No. 17/2022 is fixed on 15-
07-2025 by the Trial Court. It is, therefore, directed that both
the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on the said date.
After appearance of the parties before it, the learned Trial Court
shall fix a date for final hearing of the matter by affording an
opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. It is made clear that no
unnecessary adjournment shall be allowed by the Trial Court in
the matter.
8. With the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
07.07.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.07.07 19:13:52 IST