The Meghalaya High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act where the accused and survivor were living together as husband and wife with an 8-9 month old child, emphasizing that consent must be informed and victim's access to government welfare schemes must be secured before quashing. The judgment balances societal realities of adolescent consensual relationships in Meghalaya's matrilineal tribes with the POCSO Act's societal protection mandate, directing compliance with victim and child benefit schemes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri. Skhemborlang Syiemlieh, sought quashing of an FIR dated 10.06.2025 registered at Lumdiengjri Police Station (Lumdiengjri P.S. Case No. 69 (06)2025) for alleged offences under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was filed at the behest of Smti. Y (respondent No. 2), mother of the survivor (respondent No. 3, Miss X). The petitioner and survivor were cohabiting as husband and wife with a child aged 8-9 months.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 10.06.2025 under Lumdiengjri P.S. Case No. 69 (06)2025
- Proceedings were pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special POCSO Case No. 71 of 2025
- On 25.09.2026, the Court directed parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to assess informed consent and scheme benefits
- On 02.09.2026, the Court directed police to verify cohabitation and child's existence
- The Officer-in-Charge, Lumdiengjri Police Station submitted a report confirming cohabitation as husband-wife, existence of an 8-9 month old child, and survivor's statement of peaceful cohabitation with petitioner providing day-to-day care
- The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee submitted a sealed report dated 29.09.2026 stating:
- Survivor entered relationship with petitioner at age 17 out of love and free will
- Survivor has a daughter aged 8-9 months from the relationship
- Petitioner provides for survivor and child's needs
- Survivor is not interested in resuming studies but seeks vocational training
- Survivor has not received compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme
- Respondent No. 2 (mother) does not dispute cohabitation and has no objection to quashing
- Respondent No. 3 (survivor) is now above 18 years of age and reiterated her no-objection stance
Procedural History
- 10.06.2025: FIR registered at Lumdiengjri Police Station
- 25.09.2026: Court's first direction for verification of consent and scheme benefits
- 02.09.2026: Court's direction for police verification of cohabitation
- 14.10.2026: Date of judgment (order)
- 11.11.2026: Compliance hearing date for scheme benefits verification
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether proceedings under the POCSO Act (a special statute) can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) by consent when the victim and accused are living together as husband and wife with a child from the relationship, considering societal realities in Meghalaya's matrilineal tribes and the need to ensure victim and child welfare.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Relied on the Court's earlier judgment in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr., Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10.04.2026, arguing that:
- Adolescent consensual relationships culminating in cohabitation and childbirth are prevalent in Meghalaya's Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes
- The matrilineal system recognizes women's autonomy in partner selection and economic security
- Sending the accused to jail would cause greater injustice to the victim and child, defeating the POCSO Act's aim of doing justice
- Consent was informed, voluntary, and not obtained under coercion, as verified by police and Legal Services Committee reports
- Quashing by consent is permissible under Section 528 BNSS as there is no specific exclusion of present law/custom in the provision
For the Respondent
The State (through Additional Public Prosecutor) contended that:
- POCSO Act offences are against society as a whole, not merely the victim
- Quashing by consent undermines the deterrent and rehabilitative objectives of special statutes like POCSO
- The Court must maintain a balance between justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation without compromising societal protection
- While compassion is warranted, it cannot override the legislative intent to protect minors from sexual offences
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined its prior judgment in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. (Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023) and emphasized that ground realities in Meghalaya cannot be ignored, noting high incidence of adolescent consensual relationships leading to early marriage or cohabitation with children. It highlighted the matrilineal system among Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes where lineage passes through mothers, women have greater independence in partner selection, and husbands often move into wives' houses.
The Court held that quashing under Section 528 BNSS by consent is permissible even for special statutes like POCSO Act, provided:
"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."
It stressed that while POCSO Act offences are against society, enforcement must be tempered with fairness and compassion when facts warrant it. The Court directed that before quashing:
- Verification of cohabitation as husband-wife and child's existence must occur
- Victim must place on record an affidavit of 'No Objection' to quashing
- Victim's consent must be assessed as 'informed consent' through reflection period before Legal Services Authorities
- Government schemes for victim and child must be extended and compliance reported
The Court found no impediment to quashing given:
- Police report confirming cohabitation and child's existence
- Legal Services Committee report confirming informed consent at age 17, free will, and petitioner's provision of needs
- Survivor's presence in court reiterating no-objection and attainment of majority (above 18 years)
- Mother's lack of objection
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the FIR dated 10.06.2025 (Lumdiengjri P.S. Case No. 69 (06)2025) and set aside proceedings before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special POCSO Case No. 71 of 2025. It directed the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District; Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District; and other authorities to ensure respondent No. 3 and her child receive benefits under specified schemes including Nirbhaya Fund, Mission Vatsalya, BBBP, Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme 2022, Ayushman Bharat-PMJAY, and others. A compliance report on benefit extension must be placed before the Court by 11.11.2026. The petition is allowed and Rule made absolute on these terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Informed Consent is Non-Negotiable for Quashing
Practitioners must verify that the victim's consent to quash POCSO proceedings is informed, voluntary, and free from familial or societal coercion. This requires:
- Referring the victim to District or State Legal Services Authorities for a cooling-off period
- Recording the victim's affidavit of 'No Objection' only after she has had time to ponder implications
- Ensuring consent is not obtained under influence of marriage pressure or financial dependency
Child and Victim Welfare Schemes Must Be Accessed
Before quashing, lawyers must proactively secure:
- Benefits under POCSO-specific schemes (Sections 4 and 6, Nirbhaya Fund)
- General child protection schemes (Mission Vatsalya, BBBP, Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme 2022)
- Health and nutrition schemes (Ayushman Bharat-PMJAY, Mission 1000 Days, RKSK)
- Education and vocational training schemes (Samagra Siksha, NALSA schemes, Back to School Campaigns)
- A compliance report on benefit disbursement must be filed within the court-stipulated timeline
Societal Context Trumps Rigid Application in Matrilineal Societies
In jurisdictions with recognized matrilineal or tribal customs (like Meghalaya's Khasi, Garo, Jaintia tribes), courts will consider:
- Local customs regarding cohabitation, marriage, and inheritance
- Prevalence of adolescent consensual relationships leading to childbirth
- Women's autonomy in partner selection under tribal customary law
- The potential for greater injustice if accused is incarcerated while victim and child lose economic support
This does not create a blanket exception but requires case-specific assessment of whether quashing serves justice given the victim's socio-economic reality.
