HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 116 of 2026 Date of order: 17.08.2026 1. Evarlasting Nongsiej 2. Smti. A (Prosecutrix) ...Petitioners - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 2. The Superintendent of Police, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, Meghalaya. 3. The Officer-in-Charge, Nongstoin P.S., West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 4. Investigating Officer, Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 69(10)2021U/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 5. Shri. B (Complainant) through the Investigating Officer, Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 69(10)2021U/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 ....Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioners : Ms. D.D. Fancon, Legal Aid Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. N. Syngkon, Addl PP Mr. J.N. Rynjah, Addl PP i) Whether approved for No reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication No in press: Serial No. 07 Daily List 2026:MLHC:900 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. 3. By this petition, the petitioners, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (survivor) seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Nongstoin Police Station, being Nongstoin P.S.Case No. 69(10)2021 for the offence punishable under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, being Special POCSO Case No. 05 of 2024. 4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife for more than five years, and have three children from the said relationship. 5. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 12.08.2026, the petitioners appeared before the Secretary, High Court Legal 2026:MLHC:900 Services Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2 is an informed consent, whether the petitioner No. 2 and her children have received any benefits under any of the Schemes of either the State or Central Government, etc. 6. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope is opened and the report dated 12.08.2026 is perused. From the report, it appears that presently, the petitioner No. 1 is aged 30 years and the petitioner No. 2 is 23 years; that they formally got married in a Church; and live in their own house at Phudumbah village, Narabah, West Khasi Hills alongwith three children i.e., a son aged 4 years old, a daughter aged 1 year and a third son aged about 1 week. 7. From the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 has passed Class 3 and is a daily wage worker earning about ₹300/- per day. It appears that he is the only bread winner of the family and takes care of the expenditure at home, including the school fees of their first son, who is presently in Nursery. It appears 2026:MLHC:900 that the petitioner No. 2 is a housewife having passed Class 7 with no income of her own and that she has her own Aadhar card, and is yet apply Aadhar cards for her children. It appears that the petitioner No. 2 is not keen on pursuing her studies, however, she is interested in poultry and farming and if given an opportunity, she would like to go for a vocational training course in the said field. From the report, it further appears that neither the petitioner No. 2 nor her children have received any compensation or benefits under any of the State or Central Government Schemes. The petitioner No. 2 has given her no objection to the quashing of the FIR and consequently, the case. 8. On the last date, i.e., on 12.08.2026, the petitioner No. 2 (survivor), who was present in Court, when questioned, had given her no objection to the quashing of the FIR as she was happily living with the petitioner No. 1 alongwith their children. 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: 2026:MLHC:900 “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. 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 2026:MLHC:900 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 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 2026:MLHC:900 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.” 10. Considering the aforesaid judgment; the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that the petitioners are formally married and have three children aged, 4 years, 1 year 8 months and 1 week respectively; the no objection given by the petitioner No. 2 to the quashing of the FIR and consequently, the proceeding, there is no impediment if the petition is allowed. 11. The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with the Nongstoin Police Station, being Nongstoin P.S.Case No. 2026:MLHC:900 69(10)2021 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, being Special POCSO Case No. 05 of 2024, are quashed and set aside. 12. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 13. Needles to state, that the DCPO, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin to ensure that all such benefits under any of the following Schemes, as the petitioner No. 2 and her three children will be entitled to, are made available to them. 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 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; 2026:MLHC:900 (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. 14. 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, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin to enable them to take steps and comply with the same. 15. Petition is, accordingly disposed of. 16. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the matter after eight weeks, i.e., on 14th October, 2026 to ensure compliance 2026:MLHC:900 of the directions given to the DCPO, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin with respect to extending benefits of the Schemes, as may be applicable to the petitioner No. 2 and her three children. 17. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice 2026:MLHC:900 Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2026.08.18 15:50:22 IST