Safiya Malik

The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice B. Bhattacharjee allowed a criminal petition seeking the quashing of proceedings in a pending trial under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court directed the termination of G.R. Case No. 217(A) of 2015, observing that the matter had been amicably resolved by the parties through a written compromise.

In its judgement dated 04 June 2025, the Bench permitted the quashing of the said criminal case, which originated from an FIR alleging irregularities in the distribution of Public Distribution System (PDS) rations. The Court held that the allegations were private in nature and noted that all parties involved had voluntarily entered into a compromise deed.

Also Read: Nine Years In Jail Without Proof Beyond Doubt | Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based On 'Misreading Of Evidence' And 'Ignored Striking Features' | Acquits All Eleven Accused In Triple Murder

Stating that continuing the trial would serve no meaningful purpose, the Court concluded that the proceedings deserved to be quashed in the interest of restoring peace and preserving community relations in the concerned locality. The Court acknowledged that its inherent powers could be invoked to terminate criminal trials if the dispute was purely personal and devoid of public implications.

The matter before the High Court arose from a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS Act by an individual seeking the quashing of G.R. Case No. 217(A) of 2015. The case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. The petitioner, a resident of Mawripih (A), East Khasi Hills District, was named as the accused in an FIR dated 23 February 2015. The FIR was jointly lodged by multiple residents of the same village, including respondents No.2 to 11.

The core grievance stated in the FIR pertained to the alleged denial of Public Distribution System (PDS) ration supplies for a continuous period of 13 months. According to the complainants, the local ration dealer, who was also the petitioner, had refused to distribute the entitled PDS rations citing a decision purportedly taken by the village committee. The case was registered as Laban PS Case No. 20(3) of 2015 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Following registration of the FIR, a formal police investigation was initiated. Upon completion of the inquiry, a charge-sheet was filed vide Charge-sheet No. 25 of 2015. Consequently, a regular trial was instituted in the form of G.R. Case No. 217(A) of 2015.

Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction, seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. It was submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner and the respondents No.2 to 11 had arrived at an amicable settlement. A Compromise Deed dated 03 October 2024 was executed, wherein the parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute without further litigation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations stemmed from private disputes and had no implications on law and order or broader public interest. She contended that since the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was non-compoundable by nature, the only legal remedy available to the petitioner was to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings.

In support of the petition, the petitioner cited two judicial precedents: Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2013) 10 SCC 303, and Pynshailang Nongspung v. State of Meghalaya and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Megh 142. Both judgments were referenced to support the legal position that criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise between parties in matters lacking public ramifications.

The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that the case involved private parties and did not raise public law concerns. Therefore, it raised no objection to the petitioner’s prayer for quashing.

Counsel for respondents No.2 to 11 also confirmed that an amicable settlement had been reached. She acknowledged that the parties were no longer interested in pursuing the case and would not object if the pending trial was terminated in accordance with the Compromise Deed.

The High Court noted that the co-complainants included three other individuals who had passed away prior to the institution of the present criminal petition. The surviving complainants, namely respondents No.2 to 11, confirmed their participation in the compromise.

According to the records examined by the Court, the parties involved were all residents of the same locality—Mawripih in the East Khasi Hills District—and were familiar with each other. The compromise deed documented the voluntary nature of the agreement and also clarified that the original FIR had been filed due to a misunderstanding.

The petitioner undertook in the compromise deed to ensure regular supply of ration to the private respondents going forward. This commitment, the parties hoped, would help restore cordiality and mutual trust within the community.

The High Court, after considering the submissions and reviewing the compromise deed, recorded that "the FIR dated 23-02-2015 was lodged due to some misunderstanding, which now stands clarified between the parties." It was further stated that "the parties do not have any grievance against each other and the petitioner has undertaken to supply ration on regular basis to the private respondents without any undue interruption."

Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed that the case originated from a community-level disagreement that did not extend beyond the private parties. The Court stated: "It is, therefore, clear that the compromise could help the parties to strengthen their relationship and would help the existence of cordial atmosphere in the locality."

The Court took into account the residential proximity and familiarity between the petitioner and respondents. "It further appears from the materials on record that the parties involved are well-known to each other and are residents of the same village."

Referring to judicial precedents, the Court cited Gyan Singh and Pynshailang Nongspung, confirming that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine compromise has been reached. The Court stated: "The decisions of the Apex Court in Gyan Singh (supra) and in Pynshailang Nongspung make it clear that inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceeding can be exercised on the basis of compromise/settlement entered into between the parties found to be genuine and no public element is involved in the matter."

It was also noted that the subject matter of the complaint was specific to the private respondents and had no connection with wider societal or administrative concerns. The Court held: "In the present case, the allegation made in the FIR appears to be specifically confined to the petitioner and the private respondents No.2 – 11 only and none others."

Also Read: Orders Were Void ab Initio Owing To Lack Of Quorum | Tariff Determination Falls Within Regulatory Domain | Meghalaya High Court Upholds MSERC’s Power To Recall And Rehear Proceedings

Upon confirming the voluntariness of the compromise and the lack of any external coercion, the Court concluded that the continuance of the trial would serve no useful purpose. "Having regard to the fact that the dispute regarding the FIR and charge-sheet has been settled between the petitioner and the private respondents No.2 – 11 voluntarily out of their own free will and the settlement/compromise is aimed at boosting cordial and peaceful relationship between the parties, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to allow the prayer made by the petitioner in this Criminal petition."

The Court issued a clear directive to terminate the ongoing criminal proceedings based on the voluntary compromise. Justice Bhattacharjee recorded the conclusion of the matter as follows:

"Resultantly, the further proceeding of G.R. Case No. 217(A) of 2015 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending before the Court of Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills, Shillong stands quashed."

"The criminal petition stands allowed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. I. M. Lyngdoh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. N. Syngkon, Assistant Public Prosecutor with Mr. J. N. Rynjah, Government Advocate, Ms. Z.S.L. Synrem, Advocate

Case Title: Shri Saldoni Sawkmie v. State of Meghalaya and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:472

Case Number: Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2025

Bench: Justice B. Bhattacharjee

[Read/Download order]