Meghalaya High Court
Crl.Petn./51/2026 of SHRI. A.S. Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 10 June 2026
of 5 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.51/2026 Date of Order: 10.06.2026 Shri A.S. ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, through the Public Prosecutor, Government of Meghalaya. 2. Smti. S.R. ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.51/2026
Date of Order: 10.06.2026
Shri A.S. ..... Petitioner
Vs.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. State of Meghalaya, through the Public Prosecutor, Government of Meghalaya.
2. Smti. S.R. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. I. Kharmujai, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Atiar S. Dey, GA
Respondent No.2 in person
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. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend to replace the names of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 by alphabets having regard to the fact, that the Serial No.08 Daily List petitioner and the respondent No.2, have amicably settled their dispute. The respondent No.2 also has no objection to the said amendment. In view of the same, amendment to be carried out forthwith and the names of the petitioner and respondent No.2 to be replaced by alphabets.
4. By this petition, the petitioner aged about 32 years and the respondent No.2 aged 30 years, seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station, being P.S. Case No.129(12) of 2024, lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as BNS).
5. According to the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.2, they met through an online platform, namely, Facebook sometime in the year 2022; that since they shared mutual interest with mutual consent, their friendship developed and eventually they got into a romantic relationship.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 (original complainant) that they were in a consensual relationship for about two years. It further appears that the relationship encountered some difficulties in the year 2024 when the petitioner’s family became aware of their relationship and opposed the same and exerted pressure on the petitioner to end the said relationship. It further appears that because of the pressure, the petitioner in the year 2024 married another person. In view of the marriage, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 14th December, 2024 with the Lumdiengjri Police Station, alleging an offence under Section 69 of the BNS qua the petitioner. According to the FIR, the petitioner had engaged in physical relations through deceitful means. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the said case and the case is presently pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Shillong, being Sessions Case No.8 of 2026.
7. It appears that post the filing of the chargesheet, the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.2, both in their 30’s have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a Deed of Settlement. The said Deed of Settlement is on page 26 of the petition. As per the settlement, in view of the apology letter tendered by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has unconditionally given her consent to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding initiated at her behest. It is mutually agreed between the parties that both the parties will not interfere in each other’s lives in any way whatsoever. The respondent No.2 is present in person when questioned, she reiterated what is stated by her in the Deed of Settlement. She has handed a photo copy of her voter ID card duly attested by her in proof of her identification. The same is taken on record.
8. Although, prima facie, this Court is doubtful having regard to the facts whether an offence under Section 69 of the BNS is made out, it is not necessary to go into the same since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a Deed of Settlement.
9. As noted above, the petitioner is presently aged about 32 years and the respondent No.2 is 30 years old.
10. In this view of the matter and having regard to the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and the no objection given by the respondent No.2, there is no impediment in allowing the petition. The petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing No.129(12) of 2024, registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Sessions Judge are quashed and set aside.
11. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
12. The Registry to ensure that the names of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are removed from the website and are replaced by alphabets.
13. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
14. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya 10.06.2026 “Lam DR-PS”
Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.06.11 16:46:01 IST Signature Not Verified