Meghalaya High Court
3. Smti. Xyz (Complainant) vs Ri-Bhoi District on 8 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:700
Serial No. 05
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 84 of 2026
Date of order: 08.07.2026
1. Mahin Mebanjop Sten
2. Smti. X (victim)
3. Smti. XYZ (Complainant)
...Applicants
- versus -
State of Meghalaya represented by the Superintendent of Police,
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
....Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr L. Syiem, Adv.
Mr W. Bynnud, Adv.
Ms A. Thongni, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms O.A.I. Bang, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (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.
Page 1 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
3. By this petition, the petitioners i.e., the petitioner No. 1
(accused), the petitioner No. 2 (prosecutrix) and the petitioner
No. 3 (original complainant and mother of petitioner No. 2) seek
quashing of the FIR dated 16.08.2023 registered with the Umroi
PIC, Ri-Bhoi District being Women Police Station being Case No.
48(08)/2023 at the behest of the petitioner No. 3 qua the
petitioner No. 1 for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Nongpoh being Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2024.
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner Nos.
1 and 2 are living together as husband and wife with their two
children, aged two years and eight months. On the last date i.e.,
vide order dated 18.06.2026, all the petitioners were directed to
appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to
whether the consent given by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is an
informed consent and whether the petitioner No. 2 and her
children have received any benefit under any of the Schemes,
Page 2 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
either of the State or Central Government, pursuant to which,
the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has
submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The envelope is
opened and the report dated 01.07.2026 is taken on record and
perused.
5. From the said report, it appears that at the time of the
incident, the petitioner No. 1 was about 22 years of age and the
petitioner No. 2 was about 17 years 8 months. From the report,
it appears that the petitioner No. 1 today, is about 25 years of
age and the petitioner No. 2 is about 20 years and that they are
living together as husband and wife; and they are recognised as
husband and wife under the Khasi customary practices. It
further appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living in a
house of the petitioner No. 2 alongwith their two children, aged
two years and the other, aged eight months. From the report, it
further appears that the petitioner No.1 drives a tourist taxi
belonging to his mother and earning an income of about ₹2000/-
to ₹2500/- weekly. The report also discloses that the petitioner
No. 2 has passed Class IX and has no income of her own and
the petitioner No. 1 is the sole bread earner of his family and is
Page 3 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
taking care of the family at home. It further appears from the
report that the petitioner No. 2 does not have an Aadhar card for
herself or her children, however, she plans to apply for the same.
The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 is happy in
her relationship and has no objection to the quashing of the
proceeding initiated against the petitioner No. 1. The report
further reveals that the petitioner No. 3, who is the mother of
petitioner No. 2 also has no objection to the quashing of the
proceeding since the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living happily
as a family together with their children.
6. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 nor her
children have received any compensation or benefit from either
the Central or State Government. The report reveals that the
respondent No. 2 wishes to resume her studies and is also
interested in cooking and would like to pursue a
course/vocational training in cooking/growing plants, if given
an opportunity.
7. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor
Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. passed in
Page 4 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
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 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.
Page 5 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
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, 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 demandsPage 6 of 11
2026:MLHC:700not 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.”
8. Considering the judgment as stated aforesaid, the report
of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, the fact
that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living together as husband
and wife, which is recognised as per the Khasi customary
practices; the no objection to the quashing given by the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and, the fact, that the petitioner Nos. 1
Page 7 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
and 2 have two children, aged two years and eight months,
respectively, there is no impediment in quashing the said
proceeding. If the proceeding is not quashed, great and serious
prejudice will be caused to the petitioner No. 2 and the two
children born from the said relationship. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed and the FIR registered with the Umroi PIC,
Ri-Bhoi District being Women Police Case No. 48(08)/2023 and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Nongpoh being Special POCSO Case No. 15 of
2024, are quashed and set aside.
9. Needless to state, that the petitioner No. 2 and her two
children be extended all benefits as may be applicable to them,
i.e., the Schemes from either the Central or State Government.
The said 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);
Page 8 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
(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);
(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.
10. The DCPO, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh to ensure that all
Schemes as may be applicable to the petitioner No. 2 and her
two children are made available to them at the earliest. The
petitioner No. 2’s desire to resume her education and also
pursue a course/vocational training, to be also borne in mind
and accordingly, steps to be taken by the concerned authorities.
11. In the event, compensation under the Victim
Compensation Scheme is awarded to the petitioner No. 2,
Page 9 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
considering her age, the said amount, be kept in a Fixed Deposit
standing in the name of the petitioner No. 2 till she attains the
age of 25 years. The petitioner No. 2 will, however, be entitled to
quarterly interest on the said amount. The petitioner No. 2 is at
liberty to decide what she intends to do with the said amount
after she attains the age of 25 years.
12. The Registry to forthwith forward 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, Ri-Bhoi
District, Nongpoh and the Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District,
Nongpoh to enable them to take steps and comply with the same.
13. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
14. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
15. Stand over to 9th September, 2026 for recording
compliance vis-a-vis the directions given to the DCPO, Ri-Bhoi
Page 10 of 11
2026:MLHC:700
District, Nongpoh and Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District,
Nongpoh and to enable them to submit their report.
16. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.07.13 18:08:26 IST
