RANGSTONE KHARUMNUID v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 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 2026-03-18. RANGSTONE KHARUMNUID v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 02 Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 86/2025 Date of Order: 18. 03. 2026 Shri Rangstone Kharumnuid .... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, through the Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Meghalaya. 2. Shri Kyrshanborlang Kharsati 3. Smti. Wanrisha Kharsati ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Mahanta, LAC with Ms. S. Ray, Adv Ms. D. Ray, Adv Mr. K. Deb, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP Ms. K. Gurung, LAC for R/2 & 3 i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT: (Oral) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR being FIR No. 35(03) of 2024 registered with Madanriting Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Section 436 IPC. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i. e.
, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 (brother-in-law and original complainant of the petitioner) and the respondent No. 3 (petitioner’s wife) have amicable settled the dispute. rd 2. It is the prosecution case that on 23 March, 2024 at about 11 pm, the petitioner deliberately set fire to the petitioner No. 2’s house, where the respondent No. 3 was staying. It is further the prosecution case, that the respondent No. 2 set the said house ablaze, where his wife was staying, as a result of which, the house (katcha house) was gutted. No casualties were reported. 3. Although, quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i. e. , the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are related to the petitioner have consented to the same, it is pertinent to note that the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine. 4.
Keeping in mind of the above provision, it is not possible under the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceeding against the petitioner, although the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have consented to the same. 5. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 6. Needless to state, that the trial court to conduct the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the aforesaid petition in accordance with law. It is also made clear that on merits, all contentions of all parties are kept open. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 18. 03. 2026 “Lam DR-PS” Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026. 03. 19 15:59:36 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.