Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 18.04.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 18 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:358
Serial No.04
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.12/2026
Date of Order: 18.04.2026
Shri Premi Talang ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by its Commissioner
& Secretary (Home), Shillong.
2. "X" (Complainant)
3. "Y" (Victim) ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Pandit, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.PP
Ms. N. Chyrmang, Adv with
Ms. I. Kharumnuid, Adv for R/2&3
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
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. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.PP waives notice on behalf
of respondent No.1 and Ms. N. Chyrmang waives notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. By this petition, the petitioner (original accused) seeks
quashing of the FIR registered with Jowai Police Station being
P.S. Case No.115(9) of 2019 at the behest of respondent No.2
(original complainant) for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 506
of the IPC and consequently, the proceeding being Special
POCSO Case No.25 of 2020 pending before the Court of the
learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai.
5. Quashing is sought by consent, on the premise that the
petitioner has got married to the respondent No.3 (victim) and
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
have a child from the said relationship. The respondent No.2
(original complainant) and the mother of respondent No.3 have
also given their no objection to the quashing of the FIR/case.
6. According to the respondent No.2 (original complainant),
the petitioner had a forcible relationship with her daughter
(respondent No.3), who was aged about 17 years in May, 2019.
Pursuant thereto, the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the
respondent No.2 as against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Section 5 (k)(j)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act read with Section 506 of the IPC. After investigation,
chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and the case is
presently pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
West Jaintia Hills, Jowai.
7. It is the prosecution case that the respondent No.3 (victim)
at the relevant time was 17 years of age and the petitioner 22
years. From the said relationship, the respondent No.3 delivered
a baby girl at Civil Hospital, Jowai on 14th February, 2020. The
daughter is presently aged 6 years and is studying in Class-1.
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
8. The aforesaid petition has been filed seeking quashing of
the FIR/proceeding since the parties have got married to each
other on 23rd February, 2026 and since they have a child from
the said relationship. The marriage certificate is annexed to the
petition at page 22 as Annexure-IV.
9. On the last date i.e., 23rd March, 2026, the petitioner as
well as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present in person. Both
tendered their respective affidavits giving their consent to the
quashing of the proceeding as against the petitioner. In the
affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioner got
married to the respondent No.3 on 23rd February, 2026 under
the Special Marriage Act and that the respondent No.3 is well
settled with the petitioner and leading a happy life. It is further
stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was/is performing his
duties and responsibilities towards his wife and the child as a
responsible husband and father. The respondent No.3 has also
filed her affidavit. Both when questioned, reiterated what was
stated by them in the affidavit i.e., they have no objection to the
quashing of the proceeding.
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
10. Be that as it may, this Court directed the parties to appear
before the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, so as
to enable the Secretary to record the statement of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 separately, so as to find out whether the
consent given by the parties was an informed consent and not
under pressure. The Secretary was also to verify whether the
respondent No.3 has received any benefit from any Scheme
either, from the State or Central Government for herself or the
child; and whether the respondent No.3 wishes to pursue any
vocational training. Pursuant to the said order dated 23 rd March,
2026, the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee has
tendered her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope is
opened and the said report is taken on record.
11. From a perusal of the report, it appears that the
respondent No.3 (victim) is presently 25 years of age and is living
in a joint family consisting of her parents, two brothers and four
sisters along with the petitioner; that the petitioner and the
respondent No.3 have solemnized their marriage before the
Registrar of Marriage and are living happily together and that
Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
the respondent No.3 has no complaints against the petitioner;
that the respondent No.2 (original complainant) disclosed that
the petitioner and her daughter i.e., the respondent No.3 are
living together happily and that the petitioner is taking good care
of his family and that she has no complaint against the
petitioner; that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have a
daughter aged 5 years, who is studying in a private school in
Class-1; that the petitioner contributes financially; that the
respondent No.3 has no desire to resume her education though
she has studied till Class-1 nor does she wish to pursue any
vocational training, if given an opportunity; that there are no
conditions attached to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding qua
the petitioner; that respondent No.3 nor the child have received
any compensation or benefits from any of the Schemes, either of
the State or Central Government; and nor does the respondent
No.3 or her daughter have an Aadhaar Card, despite applying
twice in her village.
12. This Court (Coram: Chief Justice and Justice
Thangkhiew) in its judgment passed in Criminal Petition
Page 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026 has in paragraphs 31,
33, 34 and 35 observed as under:
“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 childPage 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:358get 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 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, butPage 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:358is 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.”
13. Considering the aforesaid factual position, the
observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the
fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are married and
have a child aged 5 years studying in Class-1; that the
respondent No.2 (original complainant and mother of the
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
respondent No.3) and the respondent No.3 have no objection to
the quashing of the proceeding, this Court having regard to the
peculiar facts, deems it appropriate to quash the FIR registered
with Jowai Police Station being P.S. Case No.115(9) of 2019 for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 506 of the IPC and
consequently, the proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.25
of 2020 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), West Jaintia Hills, Jowai.
14. Needless to state, that the respondent No.3 and her
daughter born from the said relationship be extended all benefits
as may be applicable to them i.e., the Schemes from either the
State or Central Government, which are as under:
(i) Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under
Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POSCO
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;
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
(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;
(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and
Empowerment; and
(xv) ‘Insurance or any other scheme.
15. In order to enable the respondent No.3 to get the benefits
of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai are directed
to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the
respondent No.3 and her daughter are made available to them at
the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
16. The authorities concerned to assist respondent No. 3 and
her daughter in obtaining their Aadhaar cards.
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:358
17. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to
both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services
Authority, Shillong and the Commissioner and Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the DCPO, West
Jaintia Hills District, Jowai and the Secretary, DLSA, West
Jaintia Hills District, Jowai to enable them to take steps and
ensure compliance of the order.
18. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
19. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
20. Stand over to 29th June, 2026 for recording compliance of
the benefits extended to the respondent No.3 and her daughter.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
18.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.18 15:40:51 IST
