HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 84 of 2026 Date of order: 08.07.2026 1. Mahin Mebanjop Sten 2. Smti. X (victim) 3. Smti. XYZ (Complainant) ...Applicants - versus - State of Meghalaya represented by the Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya ....Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr L. Syiem, Adv. Mr W. Bynnud, Adv. Ms A. Thongni, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms O.A.I. Bang, GA i) Whether approved for Yes 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. 05 Daily List 2026:MLHC:700 3. By this petition, the petitioners i.e., the petitioner No. 1 (accused), the petitioner No. 2 (prosecutrix) and the petitioner No. 3 (original complainant and mother of petitioner No. 2) seek quashing of the FIR dated 16.08.2023 registered with the Umroi PIC, Ri-Bhoi District being Women Police Station being Case No. 48(08)/2023 at the behest of the petitioner No. 3 qua the petitioner No. 1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongpoh being Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2024. 4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living together as husband and wife with their two children, aged two years and eight months. On the last date i.e., vide order dated 18.06.2026, all the petitioners were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is an informed consent and whether the petitioner No. 2 and her children have received any benefit under any of the Schemes, 2026:MLHC:700 either of the State or Central Government, pursuant to which, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The envelope is opened and the report dated 01.07.2026 is taken on record and perused. 5. From the said report, it appears that at the time of the incident, the petitioner No. 1 was about 22 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 was about 17 years 8 months. From the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 today, is about 25 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 is about 20 years and that they are living together as husband and wife; and they are recognised as husband and wife under the Khasi customary practices. It further appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living in a house of the petitioner No. 2 alongwith their two children, aged two years and the other, aged eight months. From the report, it further appears that the petitioner No.1 drives a tourist taxi belonging to his mother and earning an income of about ₹2000/- to ₹2500/- weekly. The report also discloses that the petitioner No. 2 has passed Class IX and has no income of her own and the petitioner No. 1 is the sole bread earner of his family and is 2026:MLHC:700 taking care of the family at home. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No. 2 does not have an Aadhar card for herself or her children, however, she plans to apply for the same. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 is happy in her relationship and has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner No. 1. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 3, who is the mother of petitioner No. 2 also has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding since the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living happily as a family together with their children. 6. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 nor her children have received any compensation or benefit from either the Central or State Government. The report reveals that the respondent No. 2 wishes to resume her studies and is also interested in cooking and would like to pursue a course/vocational training in cooking/growing plants, if given an opportunity. 7. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. passed in 2026:MLHC:700 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 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. 2026:MLHC:700 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 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 2026:MLHC:700 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.” 8. Considering the judgment as stated aforesaid, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living together as husband and wife, which is recognised as per the Khasi customary practices; the no objection to the quashing given by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and, the fact, that the petitioner Nos. 1 2026:MLHC:700 and 2 have two children, aged two years and eight months, respectively, there is no impediment in quashing the said proceeding. If the proceeding is not quashed, great and serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner No. 2 and the two children born from the said relationship. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Umroi PIC, Ri-Bhoi District being Women Police Case No. 48(08)/2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongpoh being Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2024, are quashed and set aside. 9. Needless to state, that the petitioner No. 2 and her two children be extended all benefits as may be applicable to them, i.e., the Schemes from either the Central or State Government. The said Schemes 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); 2026:MLHC:700 (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. 10. The DCPO, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh as well as the Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh to ensure that all Schemes as may be applicable to the petitioner No. 2 and her two children are made available to them at the earliest. The petitioner No. 2’s desire to resume her education and also pursue a course/vocational training, to be also borne in mind and accordingly, steps to be taken by the concerned authorities. 11. In the event, compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme is awarded to the petitioner No. 2, 2026:MLHC:700 considering her age, the said amount, be kept in a Fixed Deposit standing in the name of the petitioner No. 2 till she attains the age of 25 years. The petitioner No. 2 will, however, be entitled to quarterly interest on the said amount. The petitioner No. 2 is at liberty to decide what she intends to do with the said amount after she attains the age of 25 years. 12. The Registry to forthwith forward 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, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh and the Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 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 vis-a-vis the directions given to the DCPO, Ri-Bhoi 2026:MLHC:700 District, Nongpoh and Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh and to enable them to submit their report. 16. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice 2026:MLHC:700 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2026.07.13 18:08:26 IST