Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
Shri Kitbok Rymbai – Petitioner
Versus
State of Meghalaya and Others – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 188/506 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Criminal intimidation - Inherent powers of High Court - illegal intention to claim land - Quash of Order - Whether impugned order can be sustained or whether it was an outcome of an abuse of process of court - FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge Police Out Post by Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein as complainants to effect that Petitioner herein as headman of village has issued residential and birth certificates to residents which is highly illegal and in disobedience to the order of the High Court of Meghalaya - Respondent No. 3 has further alleged that Petitioner has threatened her when she met him near her house and had objected to his illegal claim over land of Respondent No. 4 herein.
Finding of the Court:
Charge under Section 188 IPC could not be sustained, however on basis of statement of Complainant as mentioned above, charge under Section 506 IPC was sustained. This Court finds that order is a reasoned one and cannot be faulted. The fact as admitted by Petitioner himself that there was an ongoing dispute between the parties relating to a land dispute would only lend credence to fact that there could have been exchange of words or threats which can only be substantiated by due process of law in a proper trial on evidence being led. This Court is not at liberty to go into details of evidence as to whether the case would end up in conviction or acquittal - Impugned order clearly indicates that after considering argument of parties before charge, Court has found it fit that charges under Section 506 IPC be framed, which was accordingly done so and the matter to proceed for recording of evidence. In reiteration of observations made above, this Court will not interfere with the process at this particular.
Result: Petition rejected.
JUDGMENT :
W. DIENGDOH, J.
1. Vide order dated 28.06.2019 passed in GR Case No. 127 of 2015, the learned Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Jowai after hearing the accused person therein who is the Petitioner herein and after calling upon him to answer to the charges under Section 188/506 IPC for offences said to have been committed by him has passed the impugned order whereby, the learned court has found that no case can be made out under Section 188 IPC, however the charges under Section 506 IPC is made out against him to which charges have been framed against him accordingly.
2. The Petitioner/accused being aggrieved by the said order mentioned above has approached this Court by way of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside and quash the same.
3. Facts as could be ascertained on the petition in hand including the annexure therein is that, on 29.05.2015, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge Ummulong Police Out Post by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein as complainants to the effect that the Petitioner herein as headman of Khliehtyrshi village has issued residential and birth certificates to the residents which is highly illegal and in disobedience to the order of the High Court of Meghalaya dated 10.12.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 363 of 2014. On being opposed by the said Respondents, the Petitioner has threatened to hurt and defame them. In the said FIR, the Respondent No. 3 has further alleged that the Petitioner has threatened her on 11.05.2015 when she met him near her house and had objected to his illegal claim over the land of Respondent No. 4 herein. Again, on 25.05.2015, the Petitioner has again threatened to hurt the Respondents No. 3 and 4 after they opposed his illegal intention to claim the land of Respondent No. 4. By misusing his powers as headman, he has threatened and used abusive language against Respondents No. 3 and 4. The FIR was registered as Jowai P.S Case No. 127(6) 2015 under Section 188/506 IPC and on investigation being launched and completed, the charge sheet was filed before the court and at the stage of consideration of charges after hearing the parties, the said impugned order was passed.
4. Heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. A.D. Syiem, learned counsel who has submitted that a perusal of the FIR and the statement of the Complainants who are the only witnesses in the case, what can be seen is that the complaint was filed as there is a land dispute involving the land of the Respondent No. 4 and the Petitioner regarding a road which passes through her land. The complaint alleging criminal intimidation by the Petitioner by way of threatening against the Respondents No. 3 and 4 cannot be substantiated as there is no threat of any kind and no evidence in this regard was forthcoming and as such, the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not found in the allegations. Therefore, even if the matter travelled further before the Trial Court, it is clear that the matter will not end in conviction and as such, the Petitioner/accused person may be discharged.
5. In this connection, the learned Sr. counsel has cited the case of Hari Kishen Sharma vs. State and Another in Crl. M.C. No. 692/2014, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court considering a case on similar nature involving Section 506 IPC has vide order dated 24.09.2018 allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the proceedings before the Trial Court.
6. Also heard Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel who has firstly led this Court to the prayer made in this application and has submitted that the Petitioner has made a prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 as well as all subsequent proceedings in GR. Case No. 127 of 2015. However, the said impugned order can be assailed by way of an appeal before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court and Section 482 Cr.P.C. says th
There are no limits of powers of Court under Section 482 of Code but the more the power, more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. Power of quashing criminal proceedings,....
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process when complaints are motivated by civil disputes.
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The court established that charges cannot be sustained without adequate evidence, and magistrates must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Point of Law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the context of an ongoing civil dispute, to secure a conviction.
The Court can quash criminal proceedings if a civil dispute is given a criminal nature and if criminal proceedings are used as instruments of harassment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
