HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.12/2026 Date of Order: 18.04.2026 Shri Premi Talang ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by its Commissioner & Secretary (Home), Shillong. 2. “X” (Complainant) 3. “Y” (Victim) ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Pandit, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP with Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.PP Ms. N. Chyrmang, Adv with Ms. I. Kharumnuid, Adv for R/2&3 i) Whether approved for reporting in No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes Serial No.04 Daily List 2026:MLHC:358 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. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.PP waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. N. Chyrmang waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. By this petition, the petitioner (original accused) seeks quashing of the FIR registered with Jowai Police Station being P.S. Case No.115(9) of 2019 at the behest of respondent No.2 (original complainant) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 506 of the IPC and consequently, the proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.25 of 2020 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai. 5. Quashing is sought by consent, on the premise that the petitioner has got married to the respondent No.3 (victim) and 2026:MLHC:358 have a child from the said relationship. The respondent No.2 (original complainant) and the mother of respondent No.3 have also given their no objection to the quashing of the FIR/case. 6. According to the respondent No.2 (original complainant), the petitioner had a forcible relationship with her daughter (respondent No.3), who was aged about 17 years in May, 2019. Pursuant thereto, the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 as against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 5 (k)(j)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 506 of the IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and the case is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai. 7. It is the prosecution case that the respondent No.3 (victim) at the relevant time was 17 years of age and the petitioner 22 years. From the said relationship, the respondent No.3 delivered a baby girl at Civil Hospital, Jowai on 14th February, 2020. The daughter is presently aged 6 years and is studying in Class-1. 2026:MLHC:358 8. The aforesaid petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR/proceeding since the parties have got married to each other on 23rd February, 2026 and since they have a child from the said relationship. The marriage certificate is annexed to the petition at page 22 as Annexure-IV. 9. On the last date i.e., 23rd March, 2026, the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present in person. Both tendered their respective affidavits giving their consent to the quashing of the proceeding as against the petitioner. In the affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioner got married to the respondent No.3 on 23rd February, 2026 under the Special Marriage Act and that the respondent No.3 is well settled with the petitioner and leading a happy life. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was/is performing his duties and responsibilities towards his wife and the child as a responsible husband and father. The respondent No.3 has also filed her affidavit. Both when questioned, reiterated what was stated by them in the affidavit i.e., they have no objection to the quashing of the proceeding. 2026:MLHC:358 10. Be that as it may, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, so as to enable the Secretary to record the statement of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 separately, so as to find out whether the consent given by the parties was an informed consent and not under pressure. The Secretary was also to verify whether the respondent No.3 has received any benefit from any Scheme either, from the State or Central Government for herself or the child; and whether the respondent No.3 wishes to pursue any vocational training. Pursuant to the said order dated 23rd March, 2026, the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee has tendered her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope is opened and the said report is taken on record. 11. From a perusal of the report, it appears that the respondent No.3 (victim) is presently 25 years of age and is living in a joint family consisting of her parents, two brothers and four sisters along with the petitioner; that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have solemnized their marriage before the Registrar of Marriage and are living happily together and that 2026:MLHC:358 the respondent No.3 has no complaints against the petitioner; that the respondent No.2 (original complainant) disclosed that the petitioner and her daughter i.e., the respondent No.3 are living together happily and that the petitioner is taking good care of his family and that she has no complaint against the petitioner; that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have a daughter aged 5 years, who is studying in a private school in Class-1; that the petitioner contributes financially; that the respondent No.3 has no desire to resume her education though she has studied till Class-1 nor does she wish to pursue any vocational training, if given an opportunity; that there are no conditions attached to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding qua the petitioner; that respondent No.3 nor the child have received any compensation or benefits from any of the Schemes, either of the State or Central Government; and nor does the respondent No.3 or her daughter have an Aadhaar Card, despite applying twice in her village. 12. This Court (Coram: Chief Justice and Justice Thangkhiew) in its judgment passed in Criminal Petition 2026:MLHC:358 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 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 2026:MLHC:358 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 2026:MLHC:358 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.” 13. Considering the aforesaid factual position, the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are married and have a child aged 5 years studying in Class-1; that the respondent No.2 (original complainant and mother of the 2026:MLHC:358 respondent No.3) and the respondent No.3 have no objection to the quashing of the proceeding, this Court having regard to the peculiar facts, deems it appropriate to quash the FIR registered with Jowai Police Station being P.S. Case No.115(9) of 2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 506 of the IPC and consequently, the proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.25 of 2020 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai. 14. Needless to state, that the respondent No.3 and her daughter born from the said relationship be extended all benefits as may be applicable to them i.e., the Schemes from either the State or Central Government, which are as under: (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); (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; 2026:MLHC:358 (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. 15. 15. In order to enable the respondent No.3 to get the benefits of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai as well as the Secretary, DLSA, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai are directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the respondent No.3 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. 16. The authorities concerned to assist respondent No. 3 and her daughter in obtaining their Aadhaar cards. 2026:MLHC:358 17. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong and the Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the DCPO, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai and the Secretary, DLSA, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai to enable them to take steps and ensure compliance of the order. 18. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 19. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 20. Stand over to 29th June, 2026 for recording compliance of the benefits extended to the respondent No.3 and her daughter. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 18.04.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:358 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.04.18 15:40:51 IST