The Meghalaya High Court has clarified that FIRs under serious penal provisions like Section 307 IPC may be quashed where the underlying facts do not disclose a prima facie case, even if the offence is non-compoundable, provided the parties have amicably settled and no grave injury or intent is established. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial discretion to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is not barred by the nature of the offence alone, but by the substance of the allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bimlan Sohshang, is sought to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 307, 326, 354, 511, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following an FIR registered at Mawkyrwat Women Police Station under P.S. Case No. 13(08) 2021. The complainant, respondent No. 3, Smti. Dwip Lyngkhoi, alleged that after the death of her husband on 26.08.2020, she began cohabiting with the petitioner as husband and wife. Her relatives disapproved due to the petitioner’s existing marriage to a relative. A clan meeting was convened to separate them, during which the petitioner allegedly demanded ₹2 lakhs to leave his family. On 10.08.2021, while the complainant was en route to Langlew village with relatives, the petitioner allegedly followed them, threatened her with a knife, dragged her into a forest, inflicted two cuts on her left buttock, and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse after consuming alcohol.
Key Facts
- Complainant’s husband died on 26.08.2020
- Petitioner and complainant began cohabiting after the demise
- Clan meeting held to separate them, reportedly on 08.08.2021
- Incident alleged to have occurred on 10.08.2021 at Kyntai Iai ground
- FIR registered on 11.08.2021
- Charge sheet filed on 15.01.2022
- Sessions Case No. 5 of 2022 initiated before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawkyrwat
- Medical examination conducted at Mawkyrwat CHC on 11.08.2021
- Medical certificate (Annexure P-54) showed: two scratch wounds on left buttock, no bleeding, three bruise marks on left arm, and positive alcohol test
- No injury certificate indicated any grievous harm
Procedural History
- 10.08.2021: Alleged incident
- 11.08.2021: FIR registered at Mawkyrwat Women Police Station (P.S. Case No. 13(08) 2021)
- 15.01.2022: Charge sheet filed
- 01.02.2022: Sessions Case No. 5 of 2022 commenced
- 05.03.2026: Affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 stating no objection to quashing
- 16.03.2026: Petition heard and decided by Meghalaya High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the FIR and charge sheet do not disclose any offence under Sections 307 or 326 IPC. The injuries were minor, non-bleeding, and no weapon was used with intent to kill. The matter was amicably resolved with the complainant’s consent.
Respondent No. 3: Filed an affidavit dated 05.03.2026 explicitly stating she had no objection to quashing the FIR and proceedings, having settled the dispute.
State: Did not oppose quashing, acknowledging the absence of grave injury and the parties’ settlement.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR P.S. Case No. 13(08) 2021 and the ensuing Sessions Case No. 5 of 2022, on grounds of absence of prima facie offence under Sections 307 and 326 IPC and mutual settlement.
The Legal Issue
Can an FIR under Section 307 IPC be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the facts do not disclose an attempt to murder, the injuries are minor, and the parties have mutually settled the dispute?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Punjab & anr (2014) 6 SCC 466 to argue that while quashing of Section 307 IPC cases is generally disfavored, it is permissible if the FIR and charge sheet, on their face, do not disclose an offence. The injuries were superficial scratches with no bleeding, no weapon was used with lethal intent, and the complainant herself had no objection. The matter was essentially a domestic dispute resolved amicably.
For the Respondent
Respondent No. 3, through her counsel, submitted an affidavit dated 05.03.2026 affirming the settlement and withdrawing all allegations. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the quashing, acknowledging the medical evidence and absence of grave harm.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the FIR, charge sheet, and medical certificate to determine whether a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC was disclosed. It noted that Section 307 requires proof of an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to cause death. The medical certificate showed only two non-bleeding scratch wounds and three bruises, with no evidence of life-threatening injury or use of a weapon with lethal intent. The Court observed that the complainant’s own account indicated consensual physical contact after the incident, undermining any claim of violent assault.
"It is evident that no case under Section 307 IPC is disclosed qua the petitioner. Neither an offence under Section 326 is made out."
The Court distinguished Narinder Singh by emphasizing that the judgment permits quashing where the allegations, even if true, do not constitute the offence charged. The Court further held that the presence of mutual consent, absence of public interest concerns, and the minor nature of injuries justified the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Court also noted that the complainant’s affidavit was voluntary and unambiguous.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The FIR bearing P.S. Case No. 13(08) 2021 and the ensuing Sessions Case No. 5 of 2022 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit ₹25,000 as costs directly into the bank account of respondent No. 3 within four weeks from the date of order. The matter is listed for compliance recording on 14.04.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quashing Is Possible Even for Non-Compoundable Offences
- Practitioners may now argue that Section 482 CrPC allows quashing of non-compoundable offences like Section 307 IPC if the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not meet the threshold of the offence
- The presence of mutual consent and absence of grievous injury are critical factors
- Medical evidence must be scrutinized to determine whether the alleged act could reasonably be construed as an attempt to cause death
Consent of the Victim Is a Material Consideration
- Affidavits of withdrawal or non-objection from complainants carry weight, especially in domestic disputes
- Courts will examine whether consent is voluntary, unambiguous, and not coerced
- This precedent supports settlement-based closure in cases involving minor injuries and no public harm
Medical Evidence Trumps Allegations
- Injuries must be quantified and medically documented; vague claims of "cuts" or "assault" are insufficient without objective evidence
- Non-bleeding scratches and bruises do not support charges under Section 326 IPC or Section 307 IPC
- Alcohol consumption by the complainant, if documented, may further undermine claims of non-consensual acts
