HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 3 of 2026 Date of order: 17.04.2026 Pyndaplang Jalong ...Petitioner - versus - 1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. 2. Miss X (victim/Informant) ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms P. Chettri, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv. [for R2] i) Whether approved for No reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes in press: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (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. Serial No. 03 Daily List 2026:MLHC:343 3. Mr S. Sengupta, learned Addl PP waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 4. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered with the Mawlai Police Station being P.S. Case No. 67 of 2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner (accused) and the respondent No. 2 (victim) have got married and have a 2-year-old son from the said relationship. 5. According to the respondent No. 2 (victim), she was in a romantic relationship with the petitioner since October, 2021 and that the physical relationship between them was consensual, as a result of which the respondent No. 2 became pregnant. It is stated that when she disclosed the same to the petitioner, he suggested an abortion which the respondent No. 2 refused and hence, she lodged an FIR. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the proceeding is 2026:MLHC:343 presently pending before the Special Judge (POCSO) being POCSO Case No. 55 of 2024 at Shillong. 6. Since this is a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR/proceeding with the consent of the respondent No. 2 on the premise that the parties are married and have a child, the respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report whether the consent given by the respondent No. 2 is an informed consent; whether she has received any benefit, either from the State or the Central Government under any of the Schemes available to POCSO victims and children born to POCSO victims. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope is opened and the report dated 10th April, 2026 is perused and is taken on record. From the said report, it appears that the respondent No. 2 is a major and is living in a joint family consisting of her mother, grandmother, an aunt alongwith the petitioner and their 2-year- old son. It further appears that the petitioner is working at 2026:MLHC:343 Mawlai-Mawroh in connection with his work and lives with the respondent No. 2 and their son on weekends in Bhoi-Umroi. 7. It further appears from the report that in 2025, the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner solemnised their marriage in a Church and that the same was attended by the families from both sides. It is further stated that the petitioner’s earnings are sufficient for him to take care of the respondent No. 2 and the child. The respondent No. 2 although has studied upto Class- VIII, has disclosed that she does not wish to resume with her studies but is interested in tailoring and pursuing a vocational training in the said stream, if given an opportunity. The respondent No. 2 also has an Aadhar Card. The report reveals that the consent given by her is an informed consent to the quashing of the proceeding qua the petitioner, with whom she is married. The report further reveals that the respondent No. 2 has not received any benefit under any Scheme either from the State Government or the Central Government nor has the son received any benefits. 2026:MLHC:343 8. 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 2026:MLHC:343 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). 2026:MLHC:343 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. Thus, keeping in mind the observations made in the said judgment, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are married and have a 2-year-old son from the said 2026:MLHC:343 relationship and the consent of the respondent No. 2 is an informed consent, there is no impediment in allowing the petition, in the peculiar facts of the case. The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with the Mawlai Police Station being P.S. Case No. 67 of 2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), being POCSO Case No. 55 of 2024 at Shillong, are quashed and set aside. 10. Needless to state, that the respondent No.2 and her son 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 POCSO 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; (viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK); (ix) Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS; 2026:MLHC:343 (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; and (xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and Empowerment; and (xv) Insurance or any other scheme. 11. In order to enable the respondent No.2 to get the benefits of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong are directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the respondent No.2 and her son are made available to them at the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent No. 2 also be extended the benefit of any vocational course of her choice, under any of the Schemes. 2026:MLHC:343 12. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the respondent No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the next date. 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, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 14. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 15. Petition is, accordingly disposed of. 16. Stand over to 19th June, 2026 for recording compliance. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice 2026:MLHC:343 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2026.04.18 15:28:01 IST