AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal.
By this petition, the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (survivor) seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Pynrusla Police Station, being Pynursla P.S. Case No. 29(06) of 2022 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, being Special POCSO Case No. 51 of 2022.
Quashing is sought on the premise that the relationship between the petitioners was consensual and that the FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the Medical Officer, when the petitioner No. 2 went to the hospital as she was pregnant. It appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner No. 1 was 20 years and the petitioner No. 2 was 16 years odd. Today, the petitioner No. 1 is aged, 24 years and the petitioner No. 2 is 20 years. The petitioners have two children from the said relationship, one aged, 3 years 10 months and another, 1 year and 4 months old. It appears that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife with the consent of the families of both sides.
Pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2026, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court legal Services Committee, to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 is an informed consent; whether the petitioner No. 2 and her two minor children have received any benefits under any of the Schemes of the Central or State Government. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has filed her report dated 06.08.2026.
From the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 is 24 years and the petitioner No. 2 is 20 years and that they are presently living alongwith their two minor children, a daughter aged 3 years 10 months, and a son aged 1 year 4 months old in Shangbangla, Ri-Bhoi District. It further appears that the petitioner No. 1 has passed Class 2 and works as a daily wage labourer in a betel nut farm and earns around ₹450/- per day. It appears that the petitioner No. 1 has been provided free accommodation by his employer.
From the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 2 has passed Class 2 and is a housewife with no income. It further appears that both, the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and that both their families have accepted and recognised the said relationship. It further appears that the petitioner No. 2 has given her no objection to the quashing of the FIR and consequently, the proceeding, as she is living happily with the petitioner No. 1. It further appears that the petitioner No. 2 is not keen in resuming her studies but is interested in cane/bamboo handicraft making, if given an opportunity, to pursue a course/vocational training in the said vocation. It further appears that neither the petitioner No. 2 nor her children have received any compensation/benefits in connection with the said case, either from the Central or State Government Schemes.
This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. passed in Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10th April, 2026 in paragraphs 31, 33, 34 and 35 has observed as hereunder:
“31.The ground realities in the State of Meghalaya cannot be ignored and lost sight of. It shows high incidents of adolescent consensual relationships culminating in elopement and early marriage or living together, as husband and wife, which is recognised by the society. Infact, cases of adolescent relationships where the parties i.e., the victim and the boy have got married or are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship are far too many, resulting in parties filing petitions under Section 528 BNSS (earlier, Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceeding by consent of the parties.
32.
33.What also cannot be lost sight of is, that in Meghalaya, matrilineal system is a rare, ancient societal structure among the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes, where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother. Children take their mother’s surname, the youngest daughter inherits the property (is the custodian of ancestral property) and the husband often moves into the wife’s house. The system is believed to have originated from an agrarian society and the need to protect the family structure, ensuring women’s economic security, social stability and the preservation of tribal identity. Infact, in the Khasi community, women have more independence than women in many patriarchal communities, including the freedom to select their partners, remarry without shame and take an active role in public places like market place and businesses. It is in this background that this Court would have to consider a case seeking quashing of a POCSO case by consent, keeping in mind all factors, including the girl’s (victim’s) and her child’s social security, by ensuring that she and the child get the benefit of the government schemes, including under the POCSO Act.
34.Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, quashing of a POCSO case under Section 528 BNSS by consent, is permissible even if it is a special statute and there is no specific exclusion of any present law/custom. However, the said discretion has to be used with due care and caution and circumspection in exceptional cases, to do justice. As noted earlier, there cannot be any straitjacket formula as to in which cases the said discretion can or cannot be exercised, inasmuch as, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case i.e., the age of the parties coming before the court; whether the consent given by the victim is an informed consent and not under coercion of the family members or the boy; that the victim and the accused are married and have a child or are living together as husband and wife, as per the customs in the State of Meghalaya, etc. Where parties are living together as husband and wife or are married, a police report, or a report from any authority, be called for, verifying the said claim. Also, while considering whether the consent of the victim is an ‘informed consent’, it is necessary that the victim places her affidavit on record giving her ‘No Objection’ to the quashing of the case. That, before such an affidavit is accepted, in order to ensure that the consent is an informed consent, the victim may be sent before the Secretary, MLSA or Secretary, DLSA to ascertain whether the consent is an informed consent, by giving her time to ponder over the same; and a report be called for, before such quashing petition is considered. While quashing the case, the Government schemes that may be available to a victim in a POCSO Act and the child born from the said relationship also be given due weightage as suggested and directed by the Apex Court in the case of Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (supra).
35.No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a case under POCSO Act, is not a case against an individual, but is an offence against the society as a whole, however, the administration or enforcement of the law cannot be divorced from lived realities. Rendering justice demands not only that the law be applied with precision, but also that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy when the situation/facts of a case, warrant it. Thus, it is necessary to maintain a fine balance between the competing interests of justice, deterrence and rehabilitation. Where the victim and the boy are married or are living together as husband and wife (and recognised), and have a child/children, sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child born from the said consensual relationship, as ultimately, the aim of the law is to do justice. Thus, in cases where the court comes to the conclusion, that the consent given by the victim is a genuine and informed consent and that it would be greater injustice to send the boy to jail, instead of letting the parties live together as one family, the Court may consider quashing the case, pending trial, keeping in mind what is stated aforesaid. We may note, considering the large number of POCSO cases, in particular Romeo – Juliet cases, it is the responsibility of the State Government to create awareness amongst the people, including the children about the provisions of the POCSO Act, its punishment, etc., not only in the cities but also in the interior and remote places, including schools, colleges, etc.”
Having regard to the aforesaid judgment, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and have two children from the said relationship; the fact that the said relationship is recognised by their respective families; the Police report which also shows that what is stated in the petition is true and correct i.e., the petitioners are living together as husband and wife with their two children; and, also having regard to the no objection given by the petitioner No. 2 to the quashing of the FIR and consequently, the proceeding, there is no impediment, if the petition is allowed.
The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with the Pynrusla Police Station, being Pynursla P.S. Case No. 29(06) of 2022 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, being Special POCSO Case No. 51 of 2022, are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
Needles to state, that the petitioner No. 2 and her two minor children be extended all such benefits as may be applicable to them, i.e., the following Schemes of the Central and State Government;
Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POCSO victims) [Nirbhaya Fund];
Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services);
Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) Scheme;
Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, 2022;
Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme;
Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY (free health);
Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya; (viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK);
Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS;
Special Training Programme for age-appropriate admission of Out of School Children (OoSC) and Back to School Campaign;
Samagra Siksha (Back to School);
NALSA (Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children) Scheme 2024; (xiii) NALSA (Legal Services to Persons with Mental Illness and Persons with intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024; and (xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and Empowerment; and (xv) Insurance or any other scheme.
The concerned DCPO, East Khas Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khas Hills District, Shillong to ensure that all benefits as may be applicable to the petitioner No. 2 and her two children, be extended to them at the earliest.
The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong and Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the DCPO, East Khas Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khas Hills District, Shillong to enable them to take steps and comply with the same.
Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on 12th October, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions given in paragraphs 12 to 14 aforesaid.
All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.