HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.46/2026 Date of Order: 13.06.2026 Shri Labianglang Sumer ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home (Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong, Meghalaya. 2. Smti. Leshmi Dhar. 3. Smti. A. (Survivor) ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms. L. Biswa, Adv with Mr. K. Khyriem, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Atiar S. Dey, GA Mr. S. Sen Adv with Ms. E. Blah, Adv Ms. S. Challam, Adv i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Serial No.03 Daily List 2026:MLHC:583 JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend to implead the survivor as party respondent No.3. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith during the course of the day. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The aforesaid petition is taken up for hearing since the respondent No.2 (original complainant and mother of the prosecutrix) and the newly added respondent No.3 (prosecutrix) are present in Court. Mr. Sen, learned counsel has identified both the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. 5. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station, being Case No.29(04)2018, for the alleged offences punishable under the 2026:MLHC:583 POSCO Act. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties i.e., the petitioner and the newly added respondent No.3 are living together as husband and wife and have a seven year old daughter from the said relationship. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the respondent No.3 was a minor aged about 16 odd years and that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 about 20 odd years was consensual. She submitted that it is only when the respondent No.3 learnt about her pregnancy, her mother i.e., the respondent No.2, lodged an FIR with the Lumdiengjri Police Station, as against the petitioner alleging offences under the POCSO Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the trial court and various provisions of the IPC came to be added in addition to the provisions under the POCSO Act. 7. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are personally present in Court and are represented by their Advocate. When questioned, the respondent No.2 (original complainant and mother of the prosecutrix) states that her daughter i.e., the respondent No.3 is 2026:MLHC:583 happily staying with the petitioner and that they have a daughter from the said relationship, who is about seven years of age. She further states that the petitioner is looking after the needs of the respondent No.3 and their daughter. The newly added respondent No.3 is also present in person. When questioned, she states that the relationship between her and the petitioner was consensual and that they are staying together as husband and wife since 2023. She further states that they have a child from the said relationship, who is now seven years of age. She further states that she has not received any compensation under any of the schemes floated by the Central or State government. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions states that the parties have no objection to the quashing of the proceeding. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are present in Court, when questioned, reiterate the same. 8. This Court in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of Meghalaya & anr passed in Crl.Petn.No.92 of 2023 dated 12th 2026:MLHC:583 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:583 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:583 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. In these facts and circumstances and having regard to the observations hereinabove, continuation of the proceeding qua the petitioner will be counterproductive and will cause grave injustice not only to the newly added respondent No.3 i.e., the 2026:MLHC:583 prosecutrix but even the child born from the said relationship, who is now currently seven years of age. 10. In this view of the matter and considering the legal position as stated aforesaid, there is no impediment in allowing the petition and as such, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station, being Case No.29(04)2018 and consequently, the chargesheet and the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, being Special (POSCO) Case No.31 of 2020, are quashed and set aside. 11. Needless to state that, the respondent No.3 to make an application before the DCPO, East Khasi Hills and the Secretary, DSLA, East Khasi Hills, to seek benefit of any of the Schemes as may be applicable to her and her child. The Schemes 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; 2026:MLHC:583 (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. The DCPO, East Khasi Hills, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, to assist the respondent No.3 in receiving any benefit, as she and her child may be entitled to. 13. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 2026:MLHC:583 14. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 15. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 13.06.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:583 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.06.15 16:25:13 IST