Meghalaya High Court

Crl.Petn./16/2026 of PELCY SNAITANG AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. on 20 May 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.16/2026 Date of Order: 20.05.2026 1. Smti. Pelcy Snaitang 2. Shri Kingborman Disiar 3. Shri Belson Snaitang 4. Shri Lurshai Snaitang 5. Shri Khrawbor Snaitang 6. Shri Amstrongphi Snaitang 7. Shri Ominglan Shylla 8. Shri Hamless Syiemlieh 9. Shri

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.Petn.No.16/2026

Date of Order: 20.05.2026

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Smti. Pelcy Snaitang

2. Shri Kingborman Disiar

3. Shri Belson Snaitang

4. Shri Lurshai Snaitang

5. Shri Khrawbor Snaitang

6. Shri Amstrongphi Snaitang

7. Shri Ominglan Shylla

8. Shri Hamless Syiemlieh

9. Shri Distoral Syiemlieh

10. Shri Abester Lyngdoh

11. Shri Peterson Snaitang

12. Shri Anthony Snaitang

13. Shri Shongdor Thongni

14. Shri Armanroy Rangdikiew

15. Shri Wesking Thongni

16. Shri Lespingroi Syiemlieh

17. Shri Plaiarstar Lartang

18. Shri Umbos Snaitang

19. Shri Baniakmenlang Syiemlieh

20. Shri Rocky Sohlang

21. Shri Wolan Shylla

22. Shri Parman Kharmaw

23. Smti. Purnima Snaitang

24. Smti. Linti Snaitang

25. Smti. Antina Snaitang

26. Smti. Tipti Snaitang

Serial No.05 Daily List

27. Smti. Shisha Snaitang

28. Smti. Gracy Snaitang

29. Shri Markhia Snaitang

30. Shri Phorian Shylla

31. Shri Plastic Sun

32. Shri Shipstolin Snaitang

33. Shri Lording Nongsiej

34. Shri Sainkupar Snaitang ..... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by its Commissioner and Secretary (Home) Police Department, Government of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. The Superintendent of Police, South West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

3. Officer-in-Charge, Ranikor Police Station, South West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

4. Shri Donboklang Kharlyngdoh

5. Shri Marius Nongsiej ..... Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv with

Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv

For the Respondents : Mr. A.S. Dey, GA

Mr. R.K. Synrem, Adv for R/4&5

JUDGMENT: (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the 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. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Ranikor Police Station, being P.S. Case No.19(10) of 2024, as against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ states that taking the prosecution case as it stands, no offence whatsoever, under any of the aforesaid sections is disclosed. He submits that the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & ors v. Bhajan Lal & ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, is squarely attracted and as such, the FIR and consequently, the chargesheet and the proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat, be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned GA opposed the petition. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 also opposed the petition. It is submitted that the material on record would show the complicity of the petitioners and as such, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR/proceeding.

6. Perused the papers i.e., the chargesheet. It is not in dispute that the Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong, vide order dated 21st December, 2023, had passed an order in favour of the petitioners. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioners have rightly proved that Tlongpleng village was under the jurisdiction of the petitioners i.e., Hima Bhowal. Accordingly, the District Council observed, that the observations made in the order dated 19th June, 2023, passed by the One-man Tribunal was correct in law as well as in fact and deserved no interference by the Executive Committee. It is further noted that the Tribunal had made a detailed observation on the historical facts and past disputes dating way back in the year 1900 by the Panchayat Lai Syiem, the Political Case of 1926, which aligns that the boundary of these two Syiemship. In conclusion, both the Hima Maharam and Hima Bhowal (petitioners), were directed to comply and implement the said order.

7. It is also not in dispute that the said order passed by the District Council was challenged by one of the aggrieved parties before this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP (C) No.81 of 2024. It appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 15th April, 2026. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, whether the order dated 21st December, 2023, passed by the District Council, is under challenge as of today. It is further an admitted fact, that the FIR of which quashing is sought, was registered by the police on 26th October, 2024, alleging the offences of criminal trespass and mischief.

8. Having perused the statements of the witnesses and in light of the order passed by the District Council, this Court does not find any ingredients of the offence of criminal trespass being made out qua the petitioners. Infact, there is no mention in the statement vis-à-vis trespass by the petitioners. Infact, the statements of the witnesses show that there was no damage caused to any of the loudspeakers which were removed. To the contrary, the statements show that the loudspeakers were removed and were handed over to the police. Thus, there is no allegation of damage to property by any of the witnesses. In this view of the matter, no offence even under Section 324 (mischief) is made out.

9. Thus, keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) and taking the prosecution case as it stands from the chargesheet, no offences either under Sections 329(3), 324(2) and 3(5) of the BNS are disclosed, warranting continuation of the proceeding qua the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the FIR registered with the Ranikor Police Station, being P.S. Case No.19(10) of 2024, the chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat, are quashed and set aside.

11. The petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.

12. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

13. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(Revati Mohite Dere)

Chief Justice

Meghalaya 20.05.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:485 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.05.20 16:14:32 IST Signature Not Verified

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead