Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Leningrade Marak & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Petn. Nos. 20-26 of 2020
Decided On : 14-09-2022
FIR - Attempt to Murder, Assault, Mob Lynching, Theft - Section 447/341/323/427/395/307/34 IPC - The court discussed the dispute over a village Reserve Forest, the allegations of assault and theft, and the findings of the investigating officer. The legal provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC were applied to examine the allegations and the commission of cognizable offences.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others for attempt to murder, assault, mob lynching, and theft. The petitioner approached the court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made against the petitioners in the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offences and did not warrant the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences and warranted the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offences.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding them devoid of merits, and disposed of the case with no costs.
JUDGMENT
1. The respondents No. 3 and 4 that is, Shri Manosh M. Marak and Shri. Manik M. Sangma of village Bangalmura have lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Resubelpara Police Station, North Garo Hills directed against the petitioner herein as well as some other persons named in the said FIR namely, Shri. Leningrade Marak, Shri. Tubline K. Marak, Shri. Poendro Sangma, Shri. Hemindro K. Marak, Shri. Krewingson Momin, Shri. Martosh Sangma, Shri. Mintang Marak, Shri. Prewingson Momin and Shri. Buta Marak on the allegation of attempt to murder, physical assault and mob lynching and theft of wallet containing cash and documents as well as a mobile handset.
2. The said FIR being received by the Officer-in-Charge, Resubelpara Police Station was registered as Resubelpara P.S Case No.18(09)2020 under Section 447/341/323/427/395/307/34 IPC and was entrusted to S.I C. J. Sangma to complete the investigation.
3. In course of the investigation and during the pendency thereof, the petitioner along with some named accused in the said FIR has approached this Court with separate application under Section 482 Cr.PC and a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by FIR dated 21.09.2020.
4. Since the criminal proceedings arising out of the lodgment of the said FIR dated 21.09.2020 have been challenged by the petitioner, Shri. Leningrade Marak as well as the other named accused persons, though separate but similar petitions have been filed in this regard, this Court would deem it expedient and convenient to deal with all the said petitions and to pass a common judgment thereto which is being done so herewith.
5. Heard Mr. K. C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the petitioners are the villagers of Bangalmura village. In this village there is a village Reserve Forest which is owned and maintained by the village.
6. On 21.09.2020 some of the villagers noticed the presence of five unknown persons who were clearing the said village Reserve Forest and the matter was immediately reported to the Secretary of the village. The Secretary, along with some village members and elders went to the Reserve Forest and inquired from those people as to why they are cutting the trees from the said forest. The five persons then told the villagers that they are felling the trees on the instruction of the respondent No. 3 who had employed them.
7. On the work of the said five persons being stopped, the respondent No. 3 accompanied by the respondent No. 4 came to the village and confronted the villagers with a query as to why the labourers were instructed from felling the trees and clearing the lands which the respondent No. 3 claimed as his own. The villagers maintained that the Reserve Forest is the property of the village and that the respondent No. 3 has no right over the same. A heated argument took place between the two parties with the respondent No. 3 finally leaving the village but not before threatening the villagers of dire consequences.
8. The respondent No. 3 has stated in the FIR that he had gone to the place of occurrence to enquire as to why his labourers were detained by the local people but was confronted by a violent mob, who on being instigated by the petitioners herein started to beat him and the respondent No. 4 by heavy bamboo sticks which have seriously injured them so that they had to go for medical treatment. The personal vehicle of Respondent No. 3 being a Maruti Celerio No. ML-08-E-1777 was also badly damaged and his mobile handset and wallet containing ? 1700/- (rupees one thousand seven hundred) only along with some other documents was also seized by the mob.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in order to refute the charges of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the said FIR and to present the views of the villagers, had filed a counter FIR dated 23.09.2020 through the Secretary of the village to bring out the correct facts, however the police have not yet taken any st
The court applied the legal provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of cogni....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the context of an ongoing civil dispute, to secure a conviction.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases, and allegations of mala fides against the informant are not a ground for quashing the criminal proce....
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.
The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. should be sparingly exercised and only in deserving cases. Mala fide allegations by the complainant cannot be a ground for quashi....
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
FIR quashed under Section 528 BNSS as counter-blast to petitioner's prior complaint alleging outraging modesty, per Bhajan Lal Category 7, due to unexplained six-day delay and mala fide intent amid l....
The court emphasized that inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious offences, to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice.
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
