Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Meghalaya · body

2026 DAILYLAW 252 (MEG)

PELCY SNAITANG AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

Crl.Petn./16/2026 · 2026-05-20

Revati Mohite Dere

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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 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 2026:MLHC:485 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. 2026:MLHC:485 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 2026:MLHC:485 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. 2026:MLHC:485 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 2026:MLHC:485 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. 2026:MLHC:485 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