29 Jul 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: 2026:MLHC:801
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0095East Khasi Hills, MeghalayaJudgment 29 July 2026
Dr [name withheld] vs State of Meghalaya & Ors
The High Court quashed two identically worded FIRs registered on the same day against a professor. The High Court held that no cognizable offence was disclosed and that duplicate FIRs on the same allegations cannot stand. The High Court strongly deprecated the police practice of registering FIRs under appropriate sections without first applying mind to the complaint. The High Court directed that any future complaints by the two complainants against law teachers be routed through the Superintendents of Police before action.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 29 July 2026 in Crl. Petn. No. 91 of 2026, the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, J.) adjudicated the matter concerning the unspecified, Mawlai Police Station / Mawkynroh Police Outpost, East Khasi Hills.
- Register number
- ML 05 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Crl. Petn. No. 91 of 2026 / 2026:MLHC:801
- Court and date
- High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, J.), 29 July 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- unspecified, Mawlai Police Station / Mawkynroh Police Outpost, East Khasi Hills
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This practice to direct registration of FIRs "under appropriate sections" is strongly deprecated.” (at para operative part of judgment dated 29.07.2026)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 29 July 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“This practice to direct registration of FIRs "under appropriate sections" is strongly deprecated.” (para operative part of judgment dated 29.07.2026)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
24 Sep 2026
(Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.