SHILLONG, India, June 5 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 4:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered vide P.S. Case No.17(02) of 2025 with Mairang Police Station, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 79, 351 and 356 of the BNS and consequently, the proceeding pending before the trial court i.e., learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mairang, being G.R. Case No.12/2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking the prosecution case as it stands, no offence as alleged under Section 351 of the BNS is disclosed qua the petitioner. Learned counsel in this context relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. He further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, can a legal notice sent by the petitioner to the persons concerned come under the purview of Section 351 (2) of the BNS. Learned counsel in this context relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manik Taneja & anr v. State of Karnataka & anr reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel seeks quashing of the proceeding qua the petitioner.

4. Learned AAG opposed the petition. She submitted that the parameters of Bhajan Lal will not apply to the facts in hand. She submitted that no doubt sending a legal notice per se by itself may not constitute an offence under Section 351, but the facts of this case, reveal that the victim (deceased) and her family members were threatened. Learned AAG relied on the statements of some of the witnesses in support of her submission. She submitted that in addition there is a video showing intimidation by the petitioner to the victim (deceased) and her family members.

5. Perused the papers with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears that a report was prepared at Tirot Sing Memorial Hospital, Mairang, reflecting the petitioner's name as the father of a child born from the victim (deceased) and that the same came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 5th January, 2025. It appears that pursuant thereto, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27th January, 2025 to the victim (deceased) demanding an explanation from her, as to why his name was included in the baby's report, when he had never been in any relationship with her. On 12th February, 2025, the aforesaid FIR was registered as against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 79, 351(2), 356 of the BNS. On 1st March, 2025, the deceased victim went missing from her home along with her child at around 5:40 p.m.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63KvxbLo8U3kfo%2Fd5ZCF%2FHl32ehsksvdRvQ0B0oC%2FG6xcOL&caseno=Crl.Petn./19/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010004262026&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.