The Meghalaya High Court has recognized that in exceptional cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, the quashing of a POCSO Act FIR may be permissible when the victim’s informed consent, marital status, and welfare of the child outweigh rigid statutory application. This nuanced holding redefines the boundaries of judicial discretion under Section 528 of the BNSS, acknowledging the gap between legislative intent and social reality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a 22-year-old male and a 16-year-old female, jointly sought quashing of an FIR filed under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, alleging sexual assault leading to pregnancy. The complainant was the victim’s grandmother. The petitioners assert that they have been in a consensual relationship since 2018, have a seven-year-old child together, and live as husband and wife with full family acceptance. The case is pending trial before the Special POCSO Court.
Procedural History
- May 2019: FIR registered at Diengpasoh Police Station, Shillong.
- 2019 - 2024: Investigation completed; charge sheet filed; trial ongoing.
- March 2022: A coordinate Bench of the Meghalaya HC, in Crl. Petn. No. 63 of 2021, allowed quashing of a similar POCSO FIR on consent.
- June 2024: A Single Judge disagreed with the 2022 precedent and referred the matter to the Division Bench for resolution.
- March 2026: Division Bench delivered judgment answering the reference.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (successor to Section 482 CrPC), based on the victim’s affidavit of no objection, the couple’s marital status, and the welfare of their child.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the BNSS permits quashing of an FIR under the POCSO Act, 2012, despite the Act’s overriding nature and the legal immateriality of a minor’s consent, when the victim is aged 16 - 18, the relationship is consensual, the parties are married or cohabiting as spouses, and both the victim and complainant consent to termination of proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the case falls within the category of criminal proceedings with a predominant civil flavour, akin to matrimonial disputes. Reliance was placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir, emphasizing that continuation of proceedings would cause irreparable harm to the family unit, including the child. The victim’s affidavit and the couple’s long-term cohabitation demonstrated genuine consent and social acceptance. The petitioners contended that the rigid application of the POCSO Act in such cases defeats its protective purpose by destroying the very family it seeks to safeguard.
For the Respondent
The Advocate General did not dispute the legal power to quash under Section 528 but urged caution. He acknowledged the social reality in Meghalaya, where consensual adolescent relationships often lead to marriage or cohabitation recognized by tribal customs. He emphasized that while the POCSO Act has overriding effect, its application must not ignore the lived realities of rural and tribal communities, particularly where matrilineal systems grant women autonomy in partner selection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of Supreme Court precedents, including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, and critically, K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents. It acknowledged that while the POCSO Act renders consent of a person below 18 legally irrelevant, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that mechanical application of the law in consensual adolescent relationships may cause greater injustice than prevention.
"The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love."
The Court held that Section 528 BNSS does not exclude POCSO cases, and the inherent power to quash remains available to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. However, this power must be exercised only in exceptional cases, with rigorous safeguards. The Court emphasized that the victim’s consent must be informed, not coerced, and must be verified through independent assessment - suggesting referral to the Secretary of the Meghalaya Legal Services Authority (MLSA) or District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to confirm voluntariness.
The Court also noted the unique socio-cultural context of Meghalaya, where matrilineal traditions empower women to choose partners and where adolescent relationships often culminate in recognized unions. It rejected the notion that the POCSO Act’s overriding effect automatically bars quashing, holding instead that the Act’s purpose - to protect children - must be interpreted in light of its practical outcomes. Where the victim and child are already integrated into a stable family unit, continued prosecution serves no rehabilitative or deterrent purpose.
The Court further observed that the State’s failure to provide awareness, education, or support systems for adolescents contributes to the problem. It stressed that the law must not punish ignorance of its own complexity.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Meghalaya High Court held that Section 528 BNSS permits quashing of a POCSO FIR in exceptional cases where the victim’s consent is verified as informed, the parties are married or cohabiting as spouses, and a child is born from the relationship. The Court directed that the petition be placed before the Single Judge for merits-based consideration, subject to compliance with the safeguards outlined.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Informed Consent Must Be Verified, Not Just Filed
- Practitioners must ensure the victim’s affidavit is accompanied by a report from MLSA/DLSA confirming voluntariness.
- Oral testimony alone is insufficient; independent verification is now a procedural prerequisite.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the victim was pressured by family, community, or the accused.
Marital Status and Child Welfare Are Decisive Factors
- If the parties are married or cohabiting as spouses with a child, quashing becomes more likely.
- Courts must assess whether continued prosecution would destabilize the child’s care, education, or emotional well-being.
- Government welfare schemes under the JJ Act and POCSO must be factored into the decision.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Grounded in Social Realities
- Courts cannot ignore cultural norms in tribal and rural areas where adolescent relationships are socially accepted.
- The age proximity between parties (e.g., 16 - 18 year old girl and 18 - 21 year old boy) is a critical mitigating factor.
- Prosecution should not be automatic; courts must conduct a prima facie assessment of whether the relationship was exploitative or consensual.
The judgment does not create a blanket exception but establishes a structured, cautious pathway for judicial discretion - ensuring that the law protects children without destroying the families it seeks to preserve.
