HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.33/2025 Date of Order: 10.04.2026 Shri Sengchang G. Sangma ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary Department of Home & Police Affairs, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. 3. Investigating Officer, Tura Women P.S., West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. 4. Officer-in-Charge, Tura Women P.S., West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. 5. Smti. XYZ (Complainant) 6. Smti. XYZ (Survivor) ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP Mr. M.R. Marak, Adv for R/5&6 i) Whether approved for reporting in No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes Serial No.08 Daily List 2026:MLHC:352 JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered with Tura Police Station being Tura Women P.S. Case No.12(02) of 2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Garo Hills, Tura. 4. Quashing is sought by consent of the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.6 (victim), who are living together as husband and wife and have one girl child aged about four and a half years from the said relationship. 5. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition are as under. 2026:MLHC:352 6. According to the respondent No.5 (original complainant), her daughter i.e., the respondent No.6 (victim) was having a love affair with the petitioner and from the said relationship, her daughter became pregnant. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.5 lodged an FIR as against the petitioner. The respondent No.6 (victim) was more than 17 years of age and the petitioner was about 23 years of age at the relevant time. From the said relationship, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 have a daughter aged about four and a half years. The parties are living together for more than four years. On the last date, the petitioner and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were present in Court. When questioned they informed that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the fact, that the petitioner and the respondent No.6 were living together with their child. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 also have also filed their affidavits stating therein, that they have no objection to the quashing of the case having regard to the fact, that the parties are living together and have a child from the said relationship. According to the respondent No.6, the relationship was consensual. 2026:MLHC:352 7. Considering the aforesaid, the parties were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable her to submit a report whether the consent given by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was an informed consent and whether the respondent No.6 (victim) had received any compensation under any of the Schemes either, from the State or Central Government. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope was opened and the said report is taken on record. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that the consent given by respondent No.5 (original complainant) and respondent No.6 (victim) has been given voluntarily by them and that there is no condition attached to the same. It is further stated that the parties are living together as husband and wife and that there is a daughter aged four and a half years from the said relationship. It is further stated that the petitioner is earning about ₹20,000/- per month which is sufficient to take care of the respondent No.6 and their daughter. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 has received compensation of ₹1 lakh from the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority through the District Legal Services 2026:MLHC:352 Authority, West Garo Hills, Tura by way of interim compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme, however, she has not received any other compensation under any other Scheme. 8. This Court in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of Meghalaya & anr passed in Crl.Petn.No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026 has in paragraphs 31, 33, 34 and 35 observed as under: “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 2026:MLHC:352 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 2026:MLHC:352 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.” 9. Considering the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of Meghalaya & anr passed in Crl.Petn.No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026, having regard 2026:MLHC:352 to the fact, that the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.6 are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship; the objection given by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the quashing of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner and that the consent is an informed consent, there is no impediment in allowing the petition. 10. 10. Accordingly, the FIR bearing Tura Women P.S. Case No.12(02) of 2021 under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act registered with Tura Police Station and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Garo Hills, Tura being Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021 are quashed and set aside. 11. Considering that this is a POCSO case, the Schemes of the State and Central Government and all benefits thereunder be extended to the respondent No.6 and her daughter, as may be applicable. The Schemes are; (i) Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POSCO victims) [Nirbhaya Fund]; (ii) Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services); 2026:MLHC:352 (iii) Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) Scheme; (iv) Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, 2022; (v) Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme; (vi) Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY (free health); (vii) Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya; (viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK); (ix) Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS; (x) Special Training Programme for age-appropriate admission of Out of School Children (OoSC) and Back to School Campaign; (xi) Samagra Siksha (Back to School); (xii) 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; (xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and Empowerment; and (xv) Insurance or any other scheme. 12. In order to enable the respondent No.6 to get the benefits of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), West Garo Hills District, Tura as well as the Secretary, DLSA, West Garo Hills District, Tura are directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the respondent No.6 and her daughter are made available to them at the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 2026:MLHC:352 13. 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, West Garo Hills District, Tura and the Secretary, DLSA, West Garo Hills District, Tura to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 14. Compliance report to be submitted to this Court within nine weeks. 15. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 16. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 17. Stand over to 11th June, 2026 for recording compliance. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 10.04.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:352 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.04.18 15:29:13 IST