Serial No. 23 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No.62 of 2025 Date of Order: 04.12.2025 Shri. Suresh Prasad Singh S/o (L) Radha Krishna Singh R/o Pine Grove, Pine Mount Ridge Road, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya …..Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. State of Meghalaya, represented by Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Police Shillong, Meghalaya. 2. Officer-in-Charge, Laban Police Station, Shillong 3. Smt. Poonam Singh W/o Shri Suresh Singh R/o Pine Grove, Pine Mount Ridge Road, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya …..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Jindal, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA (R:1-2) Mr. K.C. Gautam, Adv with Ms. A. Rani, Adv (R:3) 2025:MLHC:1175 Judgment and Order (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. S. Jindal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent Nos.1 – 2 and Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case No.51(S) of 2024 U/s 323/498A IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong on the basis of the settlement deed dated 11.08.2025. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent No.3, on 20.09.2023 filed an FIR against the petitioner who happens to be her husband alleging physical assault by the petitioner. The said FIR was registered vide Laban P.S. Case No.79(9) of 2023 U/s 498A IPC and the matter was investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet bearing C.S. No.09 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 was submitted against the petitioner which is now pending trial before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in G.R. Case No.51(S) of 2024. 4. Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have amicably settled/compromised the matter by a compromise deed dated 11.08.2025. He submits that since the matter has been compromised, no meaningful purpose will be served by allowing the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner. He further submits that the allegation made in the FIR is purely private in nature and has no serious impact on the society. He submits that the settlement in the matter will bury all hatchet and result in building harmonious relation between the parties. The learned counsel submits that the offence involved in the matter is a non- compoundable offence and hence, the petitioner has no other option but to approach this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the related criminal 2025:MLHC:1175 proceeding initiated against him. He further submits that the parties have executed the compromise deed voluntarily out of their own free will and prays that the proceeding of the G.R. Case No.51(S) of 2024 be quashed. 5. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 – 2 submits that since the matter has been settled amicably by the petitioner and respondent No.3, the State has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supports the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and also acknowledges that the compromise deed dated 11.08.2025 has been executed by the parties. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the FIR dated 20.09.2023 was lodged by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner who happens to be her husband alleging physical assault. Laban P.S. Case No.79(9) of 2023 was registered on the basis of the said FIR and the matter was investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner which is now pending trial before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, in G.R. Case No.51(S) of 2024 U/s 323/498A IPC. 8. It appears that during the pendency of the trial, with a view to resolve the pending dispute amicably, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 attempted to settle the differences via mediation. After holding comprehensive mediation sessions, they have settled almost all the disputes between them out of their own free will and have agreed to bring an end to the ongoing litigation. Accordingly, and so as to achieve a quietus to most of the pending dispute, a compromise deed dated 11.08.2025 was executed between them laying down the terms and conditions of the compromise. Contents of the compromise deed reveals that the parties have decided to put an end to all issues between them. It is also provided that the parties shall be 2025:MLHC:1175 faithful to each other and not do or cause to be done any act either directly or indirectly which may prejudice the other party. 9. The decision of the Apex Court in Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr (2013) 10 SCC 303 makes it clear that inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceeding can be exercised on the basis of compromise/settlement entered into between the parties found to be genuine and no public element is involved in the matter. In the present case, it appears that the allegation made in the FIR is specifically confined to the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and none others. 10. Having regard to the fact that the dispute with regard to the allegation made in the FIR and the related charge sheet has been settled between the petitioner and the private respondent No.3 voluntarily out of their own free will and the settlement/compromise is aimed at boosting cordial and peaceful relationship between the parties, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to allow the prayer made in the present criminal petition. 11. Resultantly, further proceeding of the G.R. Case No.51(S) of 2024 U/s 323/498A IPC pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong stands quashed. 12. The criminal petition is allowed. Judge Meghalaya 04.12.2025 “Shrity,PS” 2025:MLHC:1175 Digitally signed by SHRITY CH MOMIN Date: 2025.12.04 16:01:18 IST