HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 98 of 2026 Date of order: 07.08.2026 1. Chunchun D. Sangma 2. Ms. XXX (victim) ....Petitioners - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. Medical Health Office, Sutnga CHC, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. ...Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. I. Hoque, Adv. with Ms. H.J. Marak, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. PP Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners i.e., the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (survivor) seek quashing of Serial No. 02 Daily List 2026:MLHC:835 the FIR registered with the Women Police Station, Khliehriat, East Jaintia Hills District and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills, Shillong being Special POCSO Case No. 25 of 2026. 4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties, i.e., the petitioners were in a romantic relationship and that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife, and have a child, aged 1 year old from the said relationship. 5. It may be noted that at the relevant time i.e., at the time of the incident, the petitioner No. 1 was 23 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 was 17 years of age. Today, the petitioner No. 1 is 24 years and the petitioner No. 2 is a major, aged about 18 years 6 months. On the last date, i.e., 14.07.2026, the parties were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to submit a report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 is an informed consent; whether she has received any benefits from any of the Schemes under either the State or Central Government for herself or her child, etc. Pursuant thereto, the 2026:MLHC:835 Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The envelope is opened and the report is taken on record. 6. From a perusal of the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 is today 24 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 is 18 years 6 months and are living together with their 1 years old son in the parental house of the petitioner No. 2 situated at Brisutnga village, East Jaintia Hills. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No. 1 has passed Class 3 and is working as a Mason with a contractor and receives ₹500/- per day and, the petitioner No. 2 has passed Class 7 and has no income of her own. It appears that the petitioner No. 1 contributes towards the household expenditure alongwith the father of the petitioner No. 2 and that the petitioner No. 1 is taking the sole responsibility of the expenditure incurred towards the petitioner No. 2 and their child. 7. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No. 2 is not keen in pursuing her studies, however, she is interested in doing a course in cooking, if given an opportunity to pursue 2026:MLHC:835 the same. It further appears that the petitioner No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR since she is living happily and voluntarily with the petitioner No. 1. It further appears that neither the petitioner No. 2 nor her child have received any benefits under any of the State or Central Government Schemes. 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 2026:MLHC:835 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 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 2026:MLHC:835 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 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.” 2026:MLHC:835 9. Considering the aforesaid judgment, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, the fact that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife with the consent of the respective families, and have a child from the said relationship, continuation of the proceeding would not be in the interest of the parties, in particular, the petitioner No. 2 and ther child born from the said relationship. Even otherwise, the petitioner No. 2 has given her no objection to the quashing of the case qua the petitioner No. 1. It further appears from the report submitted by the concerned Police Station, that what is stated in the petition is true and correct, i.e., the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship. In view of the aforesaid, there is no impediment if the petition is allowed. 10. The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with the Laitumkhrah Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, being Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, as against the petitioner No. 1 at the instance of the Medical Officer, is quashed and set aside and consequently, the proceeding 2026:MLHC:835 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills, Shillong, being Special POCSO Case No. 25 of 2026, is also quashed and set aside. 11. Needless to state, that the DCPO, Khliehriat, East Jaintia, Hills District as well as the Secretary, DLSA, Khliehriat, East Jaintia, Hills District to ensure that the petitioner No. 2 and her child gets all benefits as they 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); 2026:MLHC:835 (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. 12 At this stage, Mr S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP, states that since the report reveals that the parties are not able to get married due to financial constraints, the DCPO will undertake the responsibility and assist them in getting married and even bear the registration expenses for the marriage. Statement accepted. 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, Khliehriat, East Jaintia, Hills District and the Secretary, DLSA, Khliehriat, East Jaintia, Hills District to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 2026:MLHC:835 14. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 15. Petition is, accordingly disposed of. 16. Stand over to 6th October, 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:835 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2026.08.07 16:56:14 IST