REDACTED vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

2026:MLHC:985
Serial No. 01
Supplementary
List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

Crl.Petn. No. 136 of 2026
Date of order: 07.09.2026

1. Shri. xxxx A xxxx
2. Shri. xxxx B xxxx
3. Shri. xxxx C xxxx
4. Master xxxx D xxxx
5. Master xxxx E xxxx
6. Master xxxx F xxxx
...Petitioners/Accused persons

- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, through the Secretary, Home Police.

2. Shri. Jerry Phanbuh, S/o Smti. Ivy R. Phanbuh, R/o
Nongthymmai, Lawjynriew, Shillong, East Khasi Hills
District, Meghaaya.
...Respondents
3. Smti. Vanisha Wahlang, D/o (L) J. Kharpor, R/o C/o S.S.
Wahlang, Oakland Road, Opposite CM’s Bungalow,
Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
....Proforma Respondents

Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.I. Nongrum, Adv. with
Mr. I. Kharmujai, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mrs N.G. Shylla, PP with
Ms O.A.I. Bang, GA
Mr R. Kharkrang, Adv. [R2&3]

i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:

Page 1 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
JUDGMENT: (Oral)

Not on Board. Taken on Board.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

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

4. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR
dated 11.07.2026 registered with the Laitumkhrah Police
Station, being Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 99 of 2026 at the
behest of the respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 351(3)/324(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

5. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties, i.e.,
the petitioners have amicably settled their dispute with the
respondent No. 2 (original complainant and Manager) of the
concerned Home Stay and the respondent No. 3 (owner of the
Home Stay).

6. At the outset, it may be noted that the names of the
petitioners have been truncated and set out as alphabets having

Page 2 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
regard to the fact that all the petitioners are students and three
out of six accused are minors, i.e., one is 15 years, two are 17
years and one, who has just completed 18 years. Two of these
th
minors have just completed standard 12 and one is studying
th
in standard 12 . The petitioner No. 1 also is a student, preparing
for the Staff Selection Exams and the petitioner No. 2 is also a
student preparing for the examination of Junior Teacher
conducted by the U.P. State Government. All the petitioners are
inter se related, inasmuch as they are cousins.

7. The incident took place on 10.07.2026 when two of the
petitioners checked into a Home Stay alongwith four others.
According to the complainant, i.e., the respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
the petitioners had booked one room and as such, only three
persons were permitted to occupy one room, which was booked
by them. It is the complainant’s case that three more persons
though not permitted, checked into the said room. When the
complainant objected, it appears that one of the petitioners paid
only a small amount for the extra persons and threatened the
complainant. It also appears that, when the complainant
objected to the same, the petitioners caused damage to the

Page 3 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
property, i.e., caused damage to the interior door; caused
extensive stains resembling blood spatter on the cushions,
bedsheet and walls of the room thereby, damaging the walls
skirting and plant pot area. The petitioners are also alleged to
have strewn food, wrappers and garbage across the carpet and
floor, and heavily soiled the wash-basin area. When the
complainant objected to the unapproved extra guests, the
petitioner No. 1 threatened the complainant. Pursuant to the
incident, the complainant i.e., respondent No. 2 lodged a
complaint with the Laitumkhrah Police Station, which was
registered as an FIR for the aforesaid alleged offences.

8. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner Nos.
1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 13.07.2026 and subsequently,
enlarged on bail, and the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6, i.e., children
in conflict with law, were released on bail by the Juvenile Justice
Board on13.07.2026.

9. It appears that the petitioners having realised their
mistake approached the complainants i.e., the respondent Nos.
2 and 3, pursuant to which the parties entered into a deed of
mutual compromise and settlement on 17.08.2026. The said

Page 4 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
deed of compromise is at page 64 of the petition and has been
signed by all the parties. The said deed of mutual compromise
and settlement dated 17.08.2026 has been entered into between
the respondent No. 2 (Manager of the Home Stay) and the
respondent No. 3 (owner of the Home Stay) on the one hand and
the petitioners on the other. The authorisation given by the
petitioner No. 3 (owner of the Home Stay) to the petitioner No. 2
has been annexed at page 59 of the petition. From the
compromise entered into, it appears that with the intervention
of elders of the locality and mutual well-wishers, the parties have
resolved their dispute to ensure future peace and harmony.

10. It appears that for the damage caused by the petitioners,
the petitioners have paid a lumpsum of ₹ 2,06,000/- by way of
full and final monetary compensation, to the respondent No. 3,
i.e., proprietor of the Home Stay. Pursuant to the said payment,
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have agreed to give their no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, pursuant to which the
aforesaid petition has been filed. It also appears from the terms
of settlement, that the petitioners have tendered their sincere

Page 5 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
and unconditional apology for their behaviour and actions, and
have expressed regret for their actions.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and
3 on instructions states that the said respondents do not dispute
the settlement and the fact that the petitioners have paid a
lumpsum of ₹ 2,06,000/- by way of full and final monetary
compensation, and that the petitioners have tendered their
sincere and unconditional apology to the respondent Nos. 2 and
3 for causing disturbance, inconvenience, damage and other
difficulties to them, in connection with the Home Stay.

12. Three out of the six petitioners as noted above, are
children in conflict with law; one aged 15 years and two aged 17
years. One of the petitioners has just completed 18 years and is
studying in first year B. Com; the other two petitioners are older,
in their 20s and are studying for competitive exams. Considering
the future and the welfare of the petitioners, and having regard
to the fact, that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have given their no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, and that the said
respondents have accepted the unconditional apology tendered
by the petitioners and also having regard to the judgments of the

Page 6 of 8

2026:MLHC:985
Apex Court in this regard, there is no impediment if the petition
is allowed.

13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
with the Laitumkhrah Police Station, being Laitumkhrah P.S.
Case No. 99 of 2026 at the behest of the respondent No. 2 qua
the petitioners is quashed and set aside subject to the following
terms and conditions.
1) The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 will pay a sum of ₹ 25,000/-
each to the respondent No. 3 in addition to what they have
already paid. The same to be paid within one week directly into
the respondent No.3’s account by NEFT/RTGS.
2) The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 will also do community
service for a period of six days as under:
(i) Three days with the Sikh Centre Sri Guru Singh Sabha,
th th th
Lachumiere, Shillong starting tomorrow, i.e., 8 , 9 and 10
September, 2026 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The community service
shall be done under the supervision of Dr Kamaljeet Singh.
(ii) Three days with the ‘Project Operation Clean- Up’,
which is conducted by Jiva Cares from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. under
the supervision of a person to be appointed by the said NGO.

Page 7 of 8

2026:MLHC:985

14. A report as to whether the work carried out by the
petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is satisfactory or not, to be submitted to
this Court on the next date through the concerned Pubic
Prosecutor.

15. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, i.e.,
petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, considering their ages, no
community service is being given to them.

16. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.

17. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.

th
17. Stand over to 15 September, 2026 , for recording
compliance.

( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice

Page 8 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.09.07 17:33:54 IST