HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn.No.75/2026 Date of Order: 06.07.2026 1. Shri Adrain Kharmyndai 2. Smti. B ..... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. ..... Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Ms. I. Warjri, Adv with Ms. R. Paul, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl.PP i) Whether approved for reporting in No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes 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. Serial No.09 Daily List 2026:MLHC:683 3. By this petition, the petitioners i.e., petitioner No.1 (original accused) and petitioner No.2 (prosecutrix), seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, being PS Case No.101 (7) of 2022, dated 2nd July, 2022 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, being Special (POCSO) Case No.57 of 2022. Quashing is sought on the premise that the relationship was consensual between the parties and that the parties are living together as husband and wife and have a child aged three and a half years from the said relationship. 4. Vide order dated 13th June, 2026, the parties i.e., the petitioners were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent; and whether the petitioner No.2 has received any benefits for herself or her child under any of the Schemes of the State or Central government etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee has 2026:MLHC:683 submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope was opened and the report dated 19th June, 2026 is perused. From the said report, it appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner No.1 was 19 years and petitioner No.2, 16 years two months. Today, petitioner No.1 is aged 25 years and petitioner No.2, about 20 years. From the said report, it appears that the parties are living together with their daughter aged three and a half years in a rented premises along with the parents and sisters of the petitioner No.1. It appears that the petitioner No.1 has passed standard 11th and drives a jeep and receives about ₹20,000-25,000/- per month. The petitioner No.2 appears to have studied up to Class-IX and is not working. From the report, it appears that the expenditure of the house is jointly taken care of by the petitioner No.1 and his parents, however, the personal expenditure of the petitioner No.2 and their daughter is taken care of by the petitioner No.1 alone. The petitioners are living together and have expressed their desire to get married. From the report, it further appears that the petitioner No.2 is living with the petitioner No.1 on her own volition and has no objection 2026:MLHC:683 to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding against the petitioner No.1. 5. It also appears from the report that neither the petitioner No.2 nor her child have received any benefits from either the State or Central government. It further appears that the petitioner No.2, wishes to resume her studies and is also interested in other vocational training and would like to purse a course in knitting and crochet, if given an opportunity. 6. 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. 2026:MLHC:683 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 2026:MLHC:683 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 2026:MLHC:683 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.” 7. Considering the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the fact that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship, who is now aged three and a half years of age, the petition deserves to be allowed and as such, is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, being PS Case No.101 (7) of 2022, dated 2nd July, 2022 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, being Special (POCSO) Case No.57 of 2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. 2026:MLHC:683 9. Needless to state, that the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DSLA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, to take steps and verify whether the petitioner No.2 has received any benefit under any of the Central or State government Schemes for herself 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; (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 2026:MLHC:683 (xv) Insurance or any other scheme.” 10. The DCPO, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DSLA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, to assist the petitioner No.2 in getting all such benefits, as may be applicable to her and her child. 11. Needless to state, that if any amount is disbursed under the Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, the same to be kept in a fixed deposit, till the survivor attains the age of 25 years. The survivor will be entitled to quarterly interest on the said amount and would be free to decide what she wants to do with the said amount, once she attains the age of 25 years. 12. The Registry to forthwith forward a copy of this order to 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, DSLA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 2026:MLHC:683 13. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 14. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 15. Stand over to 9th September, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions given. 16. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice Meghalaya 06.07.2026 “Lam DR-PS” 2026:MLHC:683 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.07.08 20:19:53 IST