Crl.Petn./38/2024 of BINI MAWRIE AND 6 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS. on 14 August 2024

1. Shri Bini MawrieVs.1. State of Meghalaya, through theS/o. (L) D. Warlarpih,Commissioner & Secy. to Govt. ofR/o. Jarain Dawah, Lamlyer vill.Meghalaya, Dept. of Home(Police)East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. Secretariat, Shillong, Meghalaya.

1. State of Meghalaya, through theCommissioner & Secy. to Govt. ofMeghalaya, Dept. of Home(Police)

2. Shri Debanon Nongkhlaw, 2. Shri Johnson Kharkongor,S/o. (L) W. KharpranS/o. Smti M. Kharkongor.R/o. Pdengshnong, Lamlyer vill.R/o. Umphyrnai vill. East KhasiEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. Shri Johnson Kharkongor,S/o. Smti M. Kharkongor.R/o. Umphyrnai vill. East Khasi

3. Shri Seiborlang WankharS/o. (L) J.S. Kharkongor,R/o. Lamlyer Village, East KhasiHills District, Meghalaya,

3. The Dorbar Shnong Umphyrnai Khyrim Syiemship. Rep. by the Sodar Umphyrnai,Shillong-793015Shri L.Kharkongor, S/o.R.MylliemR/o. Umphyrnai vill. East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.

4. Shri Stingwell Wankhar, S/o. (L) K. MawthohR/o. Jarain Daneng, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

5. Shri Bartony Pyngrope, S/o. Shri N. Kharkongor,R/o. Lamlyer Village, East KhasiHills District, Meghalaya.

6. Shri Tores Nongkhlaw,S/o. (L) K. Wankhar, R/o. Nongdawah, Lamlyer villageEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya

7. Shri Pyndapbor Kharsahnoh,S/o. Shri J. Kharbithai,East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya R/o. Dong Sohra, Lamlyer village

…. RESPONDENTS.

…. PETITIONERS

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal ProcedureCode, 1973 praying for quashing of GR Case No. 93(A) of 2020registered under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct. 1984 r/w Section 447/427/34 IPC pending before the court of theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong on the basis of the compromiseentered into between the petitioners and the respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioners. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing for theState respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for therespondents No. 2 and 3.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 21.12.2017 an FIR was filed bythe respondent No.2, the then Sordar of Umphyrnai village, before theOfficer-In-Charge Madanrting Police Station, Shillong alleging that thethen Sordar of Lamlyer village along with others destroyed the source ofwater supply constructed under the Community Development Scheme2015-2016 issued by the BDO Mawrynkneng. The FIR was registered asMadanriting PS Case No. 127(12)2017. Upon completion of theinvestigation, the matter was charge sheeted and forwarded to the Trial Court for initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners underSection 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 1984 r/wSection 447/427/34 IPC. Apart from the petitioners, there were two otheraccused in the matter who are not alive now.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatthere was a boundary dispute existing between the villages of thepetitioners’ and the respondent No. 2 and 3 and the filing of the FIR wasan outcome of rivalry between the parties. It is the submission of thelearned senior counsel that the misunderstanding between the petitionersand the respondents No. 2 and 3, which led to the damage of the watersupply source, has now been resolved and the water supply source hasbeen repaired by the parties. The learned senior counsel submits that thesuit for damage relating to the same dispute and misunderstanding, filedby the respondent No.2 before the Subordinate District Council Court,Shillong has also been withdrawn on the basis of the amicable settlementbetween the parties. The learned senior counsel submits that the entiredispute between the two villages has been settled and the villagers of boththe village have no grievance against each other. The learned seniorcounsel has also referred to the Deed of Compromise dated 12.06.2024entered into between the petitioners and the respondents No. 2 and 3 andsubmitted that the terms of the compromise are specifically recordedtherein. The learned senior counsel submits that since offence underSection 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 1984 is notcompoundable, the petitioners have approached this Court by invokingSection 482 Cr.PC for appropriate relief in the matter. The learned seniorcounsel places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in(2012) 10 SCC 303, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. andsubmits that the High Court is empowered under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are notcompoundable on the basis of the compromise/settlement entered intobetween the parties. He submits that no meaningful purpose will beserved if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue and the samemay be quashed.

5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing for the State respondentNo. 1 submits that the acts of the petitioners have caused wrongful loss tothe public exchequer. He submits that water supply source, which wasdamaged because of the action of the petitioners, was constructed byutilizing public fund sanctioned by the Government and in that view ofthe matter, this is not a fit case for quashing on the basis of the settlementbetween the parties. However, the learned AAG does not dispute the factthat the matter has been settled between the petitioners and therespondent No. 2 and 3, and at present, there exists no dispute betweenthem.

6. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and3 supports the submission made by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner and further submits that the respondent No. 3, who is thepresent Sordar of Umphyrnai village, also acknowledges the settlement/compromise between the parties and does not want to see that the disputebetween the two villages is carried on any longer.

7. A perusal of the record in the present criminal petition and thesupporting documents makes it crystal clear that there was a disputeexisting between Lamlyer village and Umphyrnai village at the timewhen the FIR dated 21.12.2017 was filed by the respondent No.2. It isalso clear that the allegation of damages of the water supply source wasthe result of rivalries between the two villages. There is no dispute that the villagers of both the villages, more particularly the petitioners and therespondents No. 2 and 3, have now settled the differences between themand on the basis of the settlement, the Damage Suit No. 4 of 2018pending before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong waswithdrawn. The Deed of Compromise dated 12.06.2024 appended withthe writ petition also makes it clear that both the parties have decided tobury their differences and resolved all the issues between them.

8. The case of Gian Singh (supra) cited by the learned senior counsellays down that High Court has inherent power to quash a criminalproceeding even in those cases which are not compoundable underSection 320 Cr.PC, but such power has to be exercised sparingly and withgreat caution to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the processof any court.

9. In the instant matter, since the dispute involve two villages and notthe private individuals, the compromise/ settlement between the partieswould definitely lead to existence of good neighbourhood relationshipbetween the inhabitants of both the villages. The compromise/settlementbetween the parties will also help the villagers to live in peace andharmony. Furthermore, the counsels appearing for the petitioners and theprivate respondents No. 2 and 3 have expressed the willingness of theparties to continue co-existence in peaceful manner to bring developmentto their respective villages. The water supply source, which was thesubject matter of dispute, has also been repaired at the initiative of boththe parties. In the above situation, having regard to the nature and gravityof the crime, it is deemed proper to quash the criminal proceeding.

10. Accordingly, the further proceeding of GR Case No. 93(A) of 2020registered under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Act. 1984 r/w Section 447/427/34 IPC pending before the court of theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong stands quashed.

11. The criminal petition stands allowed.

Judge

Meghalaya

14.08.2024 “N.Swer, Stenographer, Gr-II”