Shri. Virender Singh vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By … on 18 July, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Shri. Virender Singh vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By … on 18 July, 2025

                                                             2025:MLHC:620

 Serial No. 22
 Regular List

                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG

Crl.Rev.P. No.9 of 2024                           Date of Order: 18.07.2025
       Shri. Virender Singh
       Aged about 45 years.
       S/o Raj Karan Yadav
       R/o Dabarpur Village
       P.O. Ajerka
       P.S. Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
                                                      ..... Petitioner
                         -VERSUS
       1. The State of Meghalaya represented by Chief Secretary
       Government of Meghalaya.

       2. Smti. Peboni Sangma
       D/o Shri. Jangkarnath Joisi
       R/o H.No. 69, Rongreng Chidekgre
       Village, Williamnagar, Dist- East Garo Hills Meghalaya-794111
                                                    ..... Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Lyngdoh, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl.PP with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP (R:1)
Mr. C.K. Marak, Adv (R:2)

(ORAL)
Heard Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl.PP appearing for the State-

respondent No.1 and also Mr. C.K. Marak, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2.

1. By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned

Page 1 of 4
2025:MLHC:620

Chief Judicial Magistrate in GR Case No.11 of 2022 and also the
impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2023 whereby
the petitioner was convicted u/s 354 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) and in default, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 1 year
3 months.

2. The brief fact of the case is that an FIR was lodged by the
respondent No.2 before the Williamnagar Women Police Station on
02.04.2022 alleging that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. The
said FIR was registered as Williamnagar Women P.S. Case
No.06(4)/2022 u/s 354 IPC and the matter was investigated into. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet vide C.S. No.07/2022
dated 07.05.2022 was submitted and the petitioner was put to trial in GR
Case No.11 of 2022 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East
Garo Hills District, Williamnagar. At the trial, the petitioner was found
guilty by the Trial Court and was convicted by the impugned judgment
and order dated 21.07.2023 and was sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo
further simple imprisonment for 1 year 3 months. On appeal, the
conviction of the petitioner was upheld by the learned Sessions Court
Williamnagar by judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Sessions
Case Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2022.

3. Assailing his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred
this revision petition before this Court.

4. Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner, without
referring to the merits of the case, submits that the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 have compromised the matter between them by a deed
of compromise dated 27.03.2024 and at present there exists no dispute
between them. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent

Page 2 of 4
2025:MLHC:620

No.2 does not hold any further grievance against the petitioner and for the
ends of justice it would be appropriate for this Court to set aside the
conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the compromise. In support of
his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 14 SCC 577, P.
Ramaswamy v. State (Union Territory) of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
and submits that in identical situation the Apex Court had allowed setting
aside of conviction on the basis of a compromise between the
complainant and the accused. He therefore, submits that similar benefit
may be extended to the petitioner in this case and his conviction and
sentence may be interfered with.

5. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl.PP appearing for the State-
respondent has not objected to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
and submitted that since the Apex Court has allowed such prayer on the
basis of compromise, the petitioner may be given similar benefit.

6. Mr. C.K. Marak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 supports the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and
submits that the compromise/settlement has indeed been arrived into
between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2
is not interested to pursue the matter anymore.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on
perusal of materials on record, it appears that the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 have amicably settled the difference and dispute
between them by executing a deed of joint compromise dated 27.03.2024.
Further, the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 04.07.2025
before this Court affirming that she always wanted to compromise the
case as the misunderstanding between her and the petitioner arose due to
language barrier as she being a villager had no proper understanding of
Hindi language. It is further asserted by the respondent No.2 that the
settlement/compromise has been made voluntarily and the deed of

Page 3 of 4
2025:MLHC:620

compromise dated 27.03.2024 was signed by the parties in the presence
of their relatives.

8. In the case of P. Ramaswamy (Supra), the Apex Court in similar
situation granted relief to a convict on the basis of compromise entered
into by the parties in an offence u/s 354 IPC. It appears that the situation
involved in the said case was more or less identical to the situation in the
present case.

9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the
prayer made by the petitioner in this case in terms of the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of P. Ramaswamy (Supra). Thus, in the
circumstances, without going into the question as to the legality and
correctness of the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in the criminal
case, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are permitted to compound
the offence u/s 354 IPC for which the petitioner was convicted. The said
offence shall stand compounded and the composition of this shall have
the effect of acquittal in the case in terms of section 320(8) CrPC. The
petitioner, as such, is acquitted of the charge u/s 354 IPC.

10. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Williamnagar in GR
Case No.11 of 2022 along with the related order of sentence and the
impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Williamnagar in Sessions case Criminal Appeal No.2 of
2023 are set aside.

11. The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Judge

Meghalaya
18.07.2025
“Shrity,PS”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SHRITY
CH MOMIN Page 4 of 4
Date: 2025.07.18 17:03:02 IST