SHILLONG, India, May 16 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on April 15:

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Mr S. Sengupta, learned Addl Sr GA waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr J.N. Rynjah, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

4. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR dated 10th August, 2020 registered with the Mawkyrwat Police Station being P.S. Case No. 17(8) 2020 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Sessions Judge at Mawkyrwat being Session Case No. 14 of 2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 367 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i.e., the petitioners (all accused) and the respondent No. 4 (complainant) have amicably settled their dispute.

5. Few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition are as under: It is the respondent No. 4's (original complainant) case that the incident took place on 10th August, 2020 at around 7 a.m. The respondent No. 4 has alleged that the KSU members, who were about 25 to 30 in number, woke him up while he was sleeping; picked him up; made him sit in a vehicle and took him to their Office which is located in Mawkyrwat; that the said persons assaulted him without any rhyme or reason; and after assaulting him, asked him to go home. According to the respondent No. 4, his mother came and took him home after which he was taken to the hospital. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was lodged as against the aforesaid eight petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 367, 447, 324 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the case is presently pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mawkyrwat.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties entered into a settlement i.e., the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 entered into a Compromise Deed. The said Deed of Compromise dated 13th March, 2026 is at page 82 of the petition. It is stated in the said Compromise Deed that the parties have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of the family members and well-wishers of both the parties. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding with his consent.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv7Y6Hlh0i6aeJD1zCJOrO9uytGnC1frOAu3RkDxKkB4x&caseno=Crl.Petn./15/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010003042026&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.