Point of Law: Inevitably leads to conclusion that all such criminal cases are triable by courts constituted under Para 4 of Schedule VI, irrespective of fact that de jure complainant is State, as long as both accused and the victim of the offence belong to same Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

W. DIENGDOH, J.

1. The issue involved in these two cases is one in the same that is with regard to trial of cases before the District Council Court where both parties belongs to the tribal community of the State of Meghalaya. Therefore, it is deemed convenient to take up these cases and to pass a common order.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai on an application filed by the Petitioners for transfer of a criminal case being GR Case No. 22 of 2018 referred to in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 3 of 2021 and GR Case No. 43 of 2018 referred to in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 4 of 2021 from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amlarem Sub-Division to the District Council Court, Jowai, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10.03.2021 in both cases has rejected the prayer made. Hence these petitions.

3. A brief background of the case is that a complaint was filed against the Petitioners herein by one Smti Baiamonlang Tariang, which case after investigation culminated in filing of the charge sheet and registration of GR Case No. 22 of 2018 u/s 477/188/34 IPC and in another complaint against the Petitioner No. 1 herein being GR Case No. 43 of 2018 u/s 506 IPC was instituted before the said Judicial Magistrate, Amlarem.

4. The Petitioners have then preferred an application before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) at Jowai u/s 408 Cr.P.C. r/w Rule 2 and 14 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1950, seeking for transfer of the above cases to the District Council Court on the ground that both parties are members of the tribal community of the State of Meghalaya and as such, the District Council Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of this kind. Again, as stated above, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) vide impugned order had dismissed the respective applications on the ground that no power is vested on the Court of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to transfer original cases from one criminal court within its jurisdiction to other criminal courts under the jurisdiction of the District Council Court.

5. Mr. E. Nongbri, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) has failed to comprehend the import of the constitutional provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India wherein at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the same, it is clearly stipulated that trial of suits and cases between the parties all of whom belonged to Scheduled Tribe within the area of the District Council are to be tried by courts constituted by the said District Council.

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the Court below has failed to appreciate the relevant judicial pronouncements by the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, particularly the case of State of Meghalaya vs. Richard Lyngdoh, (2006) 2 GLR 238 and State of Meghalaya vs. Melvin Sohlangpiaw, (2020) 3 SCC 711 which are some of the conclusive authorities as regard the issue of jurisdiction of the District Council Court to try suits and cases between members of the Scheduled Tribe community.

7. Further submitting that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the law provided in the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 and has passed the impugned order in clear violation of the said provision of law.

8. It is therefore submitted that this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 401 and 407 Cr.P.C. may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 and to direct the transfer of the GR case in question to the District Council Court for trial.

9. Mr. T.L. Jyrwa, learned GA for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 in response to the contention and submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has fairly and candidly conceded that the proposit