Meghalaya High Court
79302 vs Meghalaya on 29 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:796
Serial No.07
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Pet. No. 128 of 2023 Date of decision : 29.07.2026
1. Shri Budmiki Nongspung.
S/o Shri. PaiaKharsati,
R/o Mawkajut, Puriang,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. Miss X.
3. Smti. Todapyrkhat Lamare
W/o Shri. Tngenland Sohtun
R/o Mawkajut, Puriang,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-
793021.
.....Petitioners
-VERSUS-
State of Meghalaya represented by the
Secretary, Government of Meghalaya Home
(Police) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
.....Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. P.S. Nongbri, Adv.
Ms. L. Myrchiang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA.
Judgment and Order (Oral)
1. By this application, under section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS)
the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending
Page 1 of 5
2026:MLHC:796against the petitioner No.1 before the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO),
Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No. 75 of 2022 u/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO
Act, 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 10.08.2022 was lodged
by one Dr. B. Suting of Mawryngkneng PHC with the Mawryngkneng Police
Station to the effect that the petitioner No.2/victim came to Mawryngkneng
PHC on 10.08.2022 for her antenatal check-up and on examination, she was
found to be approximately 20 (twenty) weeks pregnant. Accordingly, the
police registered a case being Mawryngkneng P.S. Case No. 26 (08) 2012 u/s
5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, against the petitioner No.1. After completion of
the investigation, a charge sheet u/s 5 (f)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act vide Charge
Sheet No.14/2022 dated 10.10.2022 was filed and a case was registered as
Special (POCSO) Case No. 75 of 2022 against the petitioner No.1 which is
now pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.
3. Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that relationship between the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and their co-habitation was
with mutual understanding. She submits that filing of the FIR dated
10.08.2022 was solely in compliance to the requirement of law without there
being any instruction from the petitioner No.3 and was against the will of the
petitioner No.2. She submits that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are in a love
relationship since April 2019 and with the consensus of the elders of the
family members of both sides, they started living together as husband and wife
since the month of March 2022. She submits that out of their relationship, the
petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have a baby daughter born on 27.12.2022 at Bethany
Hospital, Shillong. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 2 &
3 do not wish to continue with criminal proceedings against the petitioner
No.1 as they are now residing happily as a family. She further submits that the
petitioner No.1 has been taking good care of the petitioner No.2 and the child,
both financially and emotionally including their physical wellbeing. She
submits that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 have jointly approached this CourtPage 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:796seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner
No.1. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023 to impress upon this Court about the permissibility
of quashing of a POCSO Case by consent.
4. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent has no
objection to the prayer made in this criminal petition and submits that
necessary order may be passed.
5. Before proceeding further with the facts and situation of the case in
hand, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant part of the judgment
dated 12.03.2026 passed in Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023. Para 34 of the judgment
reads as under: –
“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, 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 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 given 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 CourtPage 3 of 5
2026:MLHC:796in the case of Re: Right to privacy of adolescents(supra)”
6. Since the present criminal petition seeks quashing of the entire
proceeding of Special (POCSO) Case No. 75 of 2022 with the consent of the
petitioner No.2/victim, on premises that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are residing
together as husband and wife and have a child from their relationship, the
petitioner No.2 was ordered by this Court to be present before the Secretary,
Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent or
not. The Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong by
communication vide Memo No. MSLSA. 1/2020/156 dated 14.07.2026
forwarded a report dated 13.07.2026 of the Member Secretary, MSLSA
stating that the petitioners are living together as husband and wife happily and
have formally solemnized their marriage on 04.01.2025 and out of their
relationship, they have a 3 years old daughter. Both the families have
recognized their relationship and have no objection to it. The report further
stated that the present petition before this Court has been filed jointly having
discussed the matter at home with the family members and the petitioner No.1
did not put any force or coercion on the petitioner No.2/victim to live together.
The petitioner No.2 gave her consent voluntarily to quash the criminal
proceeding.
7. In addition to the above report, the petitioner No.2 has filed a separate
affidavit on 18.06.2026 before this Court asserting that she is happily married
and living with the petitioner No.1 at the maternal house of the grandmother
of petitioner No.1 located at Mawkajut village, Puriang, East Khasi Hills
District along with the minor child and she has no issues with her marriage as
the petitioner No.1 is taking due care of her. She also expressed that she does
not have any objection to the quashing of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioner No.1 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong. The
petitioner No.2 in her affidavit further asserted that the consent/no objection
accorded by her is free from any force, coercion or undue influence of any
Page 4 of 5
2026:MLHC:796
kind and the same is accorded out of her own free will and volition with full
understanding of consequences.
8. Perusal of the report of the Secretary, MSLSA dated 13.07.2026 further
reveals that the petitioner No.1 is around 22 years of age and the petitioner
No.2 is about 19 years 8 months old. The said report and the affidavit dated
18.06.2026 of the petitioner No.2 undoubtedly project that the consent given
by the petitioner No.2/victim is an informed consent and not under any threat
or coercion from the family members or the petitioner No.1. It is also clear
that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are married and have a child and are living
together as husband and wife.
9. As the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are married and are living together as
husband and wife on being recognized by their respective family members
and have a child, sending the petitioner No.1 to jail would not serve the cause
of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the petitioner No.2 and the
child born out of relationship between the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Since, it is
clear to this Court that the consent given by the petitioner No.2 is a genuine
and informed consent and that it would be greater injustice to send the
petitioner No.1 to jail, a case has been made out by the petitioners for invoking
inherent jurisdiction of this Court for issuing necessary direction.
10. Resultantly, further proceedings of Special (POCSO) Case No. 75 of
2022 u/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Special Judge
(POCSO) Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed.
11. The criminal petition stands allowed.
Judge
Meghalaya
29.07.2026
“Abhinandan,PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ABHINANDAN KUMAR Page 5 of 5
Date: 2026.07.30 11:16:26 IST
