Meghalaya High Court
2. Smti. X vs Police Station on 27 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:774
Serial No. 09
Daily List M,HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 76 of 2026
Date of order: 27.07.2026
1. Kingson Mawlong
2. Smti. X
...Petitioners
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department,
Meghalaya.
2. Smti. Y. (Complainant) through Officer-in-Charge Women
Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Ms C.B. Sawian, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs N.G. Shylla, PP with
Mrs I. Lyngwa, Addl PP
Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv.[R2]
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
Page 1 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioners i.e., the petitioner No. 1
(accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (prosecutrix) seek quashing of
the FIR registered with the Ri-Bhoi Women Police Station, Ri-
Bhoi District being Women P.S. Case No. 76(11)2021 and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the Special Judge
(POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District being Special POCSO Case No. 19 of
2022.
3. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners
have formally married each other and have a girl child aged, 4
years. When the aforesaid FIR was lodged as against the
petitioner No.1, the petitioner No. 2 was a minor and pregnant.
Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 delivered a child in February,
2022. It appears that since the petitioner No. 2 was a minor, she
was living with her parents. On attaining the age of majority, the
petitioner No. 2 started living with the petitioner No. 1 today,
Page 2 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
they got formally married. Today, the petitioner No. 2 is aged 19
years and 10 months and the petitioner No. 1 is 27 years.
Further it appears that the petitioners got formally married in
March, 2026 before the Marriage Registrar at Nongpoh and are
living together in the petitioner No.1’s parental house.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2026 passed in the
aforesaid petition, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The
envelope is opened and the report dated 15.07.2026 is perused.
5. From the said report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1
is aged 27 years and the petitioner No. 2 is 19 years and 10
months, and are living together. It further appears that they got
formally married in March, 2026 and are living in the petitioner
No.1’s house with their child, who is aged 4 years as of today.
From the report, it further appears that the petitioner No. 1 has
passed standard 11th and is currently dealing with second hand
Scooties besides himself driving an autorickshaw taxi. It further
appears that the petitioner No. 2 has passed standard 12th and
had taken admission to pursue her diploma course as a
Page 3 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
Laboratory Technician, however, due to the ongoing case against
the petitioner No. 1, she could not attend the classes regularly,
resulting in dropping out from the said course. It further appears
from the report that the petitioner No. 2 is keen to pursue the
said course again and/or pursue studies in law and that she is
also interested in tailoring and wishes to pursue vocational
training in the said course, if given an opportunity. It further
appears from the report that the household expenditure is taken
care of by the petitioner No. 1 and his father, who is a retired
Government servant. It further appears from the report that the
petitioner No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the
proceeding against the petitioner No. 1. It further appears that
neither the petitioner No. 2 nor her child have received any
compensation or benefits under any of the Schemes either of the
State or Central Government.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners were in a romantic relationship pursuant to which,
the petitioner No. 2 gave birth to a girl child.
Page 4 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
7. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor
Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. passed in
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 inPage 5 of 11
2026:MLHC:774mind 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.
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).
Page 6 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
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 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.”
8. Considering the aforesaid judgment, having regard to the
report submitted by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee, the fact that the petitioners are married and have a
child from the said relationship, who is currently 4 years of age,
Page 7 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
it will not be appropriate that the trial proceeds qua the
petitioner No 1. Considering the aforesaid, there is no
impediment, if the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
against the petitioner No. 1 is quashed and set aside and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
with Ri-Bhoi Women Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District being
Women P.S. Case No. 76(11)2021 and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi
District being Special POCSO Case No. 19 of 2022, stand
quashed and set aside.
10. Needless to state that the petitioner No. 2 be extended all
such benefits as may be applicable to her and her child under
any of the Schemes of either the State or Central Government.
The 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];
Page 8 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
(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;
(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.
11. The Secretary, DLSA, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh as well as
the DCPO, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh to extend all possible
assistance to the petitioner No. 2 and her child. In the event,
victim compensation is granted to the petitioner No. 2 under the
Victim Compensation Scheme, the said amount to be kept in a
Fixed Deposit, in the name of the petitioner No. 2 till she attains
Page 9 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
the age of 25 years, however, the petitioner No. 2 will be entitled
to quarterly interest on the same and will be free to decide what
she intends to do with the said amount on attaining the age of
25. All such assistance be extended to the survivor and her child
under any of the Schemes. The petitioner No. 2 also to be given
help to pursue her education/any vocational training course or
any other course which she intends to join. The said exercise to
be completed within eight weeks.
12. Registry to forward forthwith 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.
Page 10 of 11
2026:MLHC:774
15. Stand over to 30th September, 2026 for recording
compliance of the directions given.
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: 2026.07.28 18:09:22 IST
