FORWARDMAN NONGREM AND ORS. v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE REVATI MOHITE DERE, CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-04-15. FORWARDMAN NONGREM AND ORS. v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 08 Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 15 of 2026 with Crl. M. C. No. 36 of 2026 Date of order: 15. 04. 2026 1. Shri Fordwardman Nongrem. 2. Shri Everwel Robin Thongni. 3. Shri Shiningstar Lyngdoh. 4. Shri Dispailan Syiemlieh. 5. Shri Donalstune Thongni. 6. Shri Ibanpyntngen Thongni. 7. Shri Sholman Thongni. 8. Shri Widerstone Thongni. ... Petitioners - versus - 1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Officer-in-Charge, Mawkyrwat Police Station, South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat, Meghalaya. 3. The Investigation Officer (IO), Mawkyrwat Police Station, South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat, Meghalaya. 4. Shri Pynshngain Wanniang. ... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr P. Yobin, Adv. with Mr K. V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP with Mr H. Abraham, Addl PP [for R1-3] Mr J.
N. Rynjah, Adv. [for R4] i) Whether approved for No reporting in Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication Yes in press: JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Mr S. Sengupta, learned Addl Sr GA waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr J. N. Rynjah, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 4. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR th dated 10 August, 2020 registered with the Mawkyrwat Police Station being P. S. Case No. 17(8) 2020 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Sessions Judge at Mawkyrwat being Session Case No. 14 of 2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 367 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i. e.
, the petitioners (all accused) and the respondent No. 4 (complainant) have amicably settled their dispute. 5. Few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition are as under: It is the respondent No. 4’s (original complainant) case th that the incident took place on 10 August, 2020 at around 7 a. m. The respondent No. 4 has alleged that the KSU members, who were about 25 to 30 in number, woke him up while he was sleeping; picked him up; made him sit in a vehicle and took him to their Office which is located in Mawkyrwat; that the said persons assaulted him without any rhyme or reason; and after assaulting him, asked him to go home. According to the respondent No. 4, his mother came and took him home after which he was taken to the hospital. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was lodged as against the aforesaid eight petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 367, 447, 324 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the case is presently pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mawkyrwat. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties entered into a settlement i. e. , the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 entered into a Compromise Deed. The said Deed of th Compromise dated 13 March, 2026 is at page 82 of the petition. It is stated in the said Compromise Deed that the parties have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of the family members and well-wishers of both the parties. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding with his consent. 7. The respondent No. 4 has also tendered his affidavit dated th 15 April, 2026. To the affidavit is annexed the respondent No. 4’s driving licence and Aadhar Card. The said affidavit is taken on record.
When questioned, the respondent (original complainant), who is present in person, reiterated what is stated in the Compromise Deed. He states that he has ‘no objection’ to the quashing of the proceeding as against the petitioners. 8. From a perusal of the FIR/charge-sheet, no offence as alleged under Section 367 of the IPC, is made out. The injuries sustained by the respondent No. 4 are all simple injuries, as is evident from the medical certificate which is annexed to the petition, at page 39. 9. Keeping in mind that the judgments of the Apex Court and the amicable settlement between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4, there is no impediment if the petition is allowed. Accordingly, the FIR registered with the Mawkyrwat Police Station vide Police Case No. 17(8) 2020 and consequently, the Session Case No. 14 of 2025 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mawkyrwat as against all the petitioners are quashed and set aside. 10.
The petitioners to pay a total sum of ₹10,000/- within two weeks from today to the respondent No. 4. 11. Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 12. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. List this petition for recording compliance of the direction th in paragraph 10 on 13 May, 2026. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.