HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 35 of 2026 Date of order: 06.07.2026 Trosbingroy Sad Alias Rudolph Syiem ....Petitioner - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya represented by its Commissioner and Secretary (Home), Shillong. 2. “X” (Complainant) 3. “Y” (Victim) ....Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms T.A. Sangma, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr H. Kharmih, Addl PP Mr S. Diengdoh, Adv. [R2&3] 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. Serial No. 03 Daily List 2026:MLHC:665 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 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station being Rynjah P.S. Case No. 16(2) 2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong being Special (POCSO) Case No. 19 of 2023. 4. Quashing is sought on premise that the parties i.e, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are living together with the consent of the respective families. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit of the petitioner dated 30.06.2026. In the said affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have attained the age of majority, the parties have got married. It is stated in the said affidavit that the marriage is registered by the Marriage Officer, East Khasi Hills District Shillong as per the Special Marriage Act on 29.06.2026 having effect from 04.03.2026. To the affidavit is 2026:MLHC:665 annexed, the Certificate of Marriage duly issued by the authority. It is further stated in the affidavit, that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are now living together as husband and wife happily. 5. The FIR against the petitioner was lodged by the respondent No. 2 (the uncle of the respondent No. 3). The respondent No. 2 is present in person in Court. He is represented by his lawyer and has tendered his proof of identification duly attested by him. The said document i.e., EPIC card is taken on record. 6. The parties were also directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, pursuant to which the parties appeared before the Secretary. The Secretary has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The envelope is opened and the report dated 04.05.2026 is perused. From the said report, it appears that the petitioner is about 25 years of age and the respondent No. 3 is 19 years of age; and that they are living together as husband and wife at Umpling, Shillong alongwith the younger brother of the respondent No. 3. From the 2026:MLHC:665 report, it further appears that the families of both sides have consented to their living together and have also consented to their decision to get married, whenever they wished to do so. It is pertinent to note, that during the pendency of this petition, and post the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee’s report, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 got married on 29.06.2026. 7. It further appears from the report that out of the said relationship, the respondent No. 3 gave birth to a child, however, the child died soon thereafter. It further appears from the report that the respondent No. 3 has passed Class IX and is presently studying in Class X. It further appears that the expenditure of the house is taken care of by the petitioner and the respondent No.3’s mother. It further appears that the respondent No. 3 has stated that she is living happily with the petitioner on her own volition and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. She has further stated that she has not received any benefits from the authorities and that neither does she have an Aadhar 2026:MLHC:665 card. She has further stated that after completing standard X, she would like to pursue a vocational course in tailoring. 8. The respondent No. 2, the uncle of the respondent No. 3, who is present in Court. He reiterates that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR since the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have now, got married. 9. 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 2026:MLHC:665 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 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 2026:MLHC:665 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 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 2026:MLHC:665 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.” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the judgment of this Court as reproduced hereinabove and the fact that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, who were living together as husband and wife with the consent of their families and have now got married, there is no impediment in allowing the petition. If the FIR/proceeding is not quashed, great prejudice will be caused to the respondent No. 3. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station, being Rynjah P.S. Case No. 16(2) 2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong being Special (POCSO) Case No. 19 of 2023, stand quashed and set aside. 12. Needles to state, that the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills 2026:MLHC:665 District, Shillong to ensure that the respondent No. 3 gets all the benefits, as she may be entitled to, under the following Schemes; (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; (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. 2026:MLHC:665 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 7th September, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions given. 17. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice 2026:MLHC:665 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2026.07.08 20:20:16 IST