Safiya Malik

The Meghalaya High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a former Director General of Police (DGP) concerning allegations of misuse and tampering with a vehicle registration number. The court, in its judgment, quashed both the First Information Report (FIR) and the charge sheet, holding that the case failed to satisfy the essential legal ingredients of the alleged offense under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The case originated from an FIR lodged on May 9, 2024, by the second respondent, alleging that the petitioner, in his capacity as the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, had misused and tampered with the registration number of an official vehicle. The allegations included criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and cheating. Consequently, the case was registered as Sadar P.S. FIR No. 141(5) 2024 under Sections 409, 467, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

During the investigation, the charge sheet (No. 38/24), dated September 19, 2024, was submitted by the police. However, no charges were pressed against the petitioner under Sections 409, 467, 471, or 120B of the IPC. Instead, the charge sheet was confined to an alleged violation under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner, through counsel, challenged the validity of the proceedings and sought their quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was contended that:

• Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a non-compoundable offense, and the police lacked the authority to investigate or prosecute the case without prior judicial sanction.

• The petitioner had used the vehicle in an official capacity and in compliance with government directives.

• The charge sheet did not establish the necessary elements of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as there was no allegation that the petitioner used an unregistered vehicle.

• The second respondent, who lodged the FIR, was not a victim but allegedly acted out of personal animosity, as he had been suspended from service during the petitioner’s tenure as DGP.

• The initiation of proceedings was an act of harassment and motivated by extraneous considerations.

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, and State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Others (2025) SCC OnLine SC 126, to support the argument that frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings should be quashed.

The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that while the investigation had not substantiated charges under the IPC provisions, the petitioner had not adhered to the Transport Department's stipulated conditions regarding the vehicle’s registration. It was contended that:

• The petitioner had used a vehicle bearing an Assam registration number (AS-01-EY-3100), requisitioned from a private entity, M/s Gautam Construction Company, Guwahati.

• The Transport Department had approved the use of the vehicle under Meghalaya registration but not with an “ML-02” registration.

• The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner used the vehicle with the registration number “ML-02-A-0001,” which belonged to a different police department vehicle.

However, the State admitted that the offense under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act was non-cognizable and that the investigating authority had not sought prior permission from the Magistrate before proceeding with the investigation.

The High Court, after rexamining the case records, noted that:

• While the FIR included allegations under Sections 409, 467, 471, and 120B of the IPC, no corresponding charges were included in the charge sheet, reducing the case to an alleged offense under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

• The materials on record did not demonstrate that the petitioner had misused or intentionally tampered with the registration number of the vehicle.

• The Transport Department’s approval, dated August 1, 2023, contained contradictory instructions, stating that the petitioner could use the vehicle under Meghalaya registration but not an "ML-02" registration, which itself falls under Meghalaya registration.

• There was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner had directed or authorized the alleged use of the disputed registration number.

• Since the investigation pertained solely to a non-cognizable offense under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the police were required under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to obtain prior judicial authorization. The absence of such permission rendered the charge sheet legally unsustainable.

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner were without legal foundation. It stated:

"In view of the discussions made above, this criminal petition succeeds. Resultantly, the proceedings of the Sadar P.S. FIR No. 141(5) 2024 under Section 409/467/471/120B IPC read with Section 192 MV Act and the charge-sheet No.38/24 dated 19-09-2024 under Section 192 MV Act are hereby quashed."

Case Title: Dr. Lajja Ram Bishnoi v. State of Meghalaya & Another
Case Number: Crl. Petn. No. 31 of 2024
Bench: Justice Biswadeep Bhattacharjee

[Read/Download order]