Meghalaya High Court
Shri Shalenbor Wahlang vs The State Of Meghalaya on 10 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:351
Serial No.07
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.92/2023
Date of Order: 10.04.2026
1. Shri Shalenbor Wahlang
2. Smti. B ..... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary Govt. of
Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, East Khasi Hills
District, Meghalaya.
2. Smti. Skhemkeri Syiem ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Ms. L. Khiangte, Adv with
Mr. T.H. Rakesh, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Gurung, Addl.PP with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
Mr. S.P. Mahanta, Amicus Curiae
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
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. By this petition, the petitioners i.e., the petitioner No.1
(accused) and petitioner No.2 (victim) seek quashing of the FIR
registered with Diengpasoh Police Station being Diengpasoh P.S.
Case No.05(5) of 2019 for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the
proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.103 of 2019 pending
before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong.
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 are living together as husband and wife and from
the said relationship have two children aged about six and a half
years and five months.
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
5. A few facts as are necessary to decide the petition are as
under.
6. At the relevant time, the petitioner No.1 was 22 years of
age and the petitioner No.2 was 16 years of age. It is the
petitioners’ case that they were in a consensual relationship. It is
further the petitioners’ case that in 2019, the petitioner No.2
went for a medical checkup, as she had stomach ache and that
it was the doctor at the hospital who disclosed that the petitioner
No.2 was two months pregnant. Accordingly, on the direction of
the hospital, the petitioner No.1 informed the concerned police
station. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 i.e., the grandmother of
the petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR as against the petitioner No.1
on the instructions of the officials of the Social Welfare
Department. It is not in dispute that thereafter, the petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 started living together as husband and wife and
that the said relationship was not opposed to by the parents of
either of the parties. From the said relationship the petitioners
have two sons, one, aged six and a half years and the other,
aged five months.
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
7. Considering the aforesaid, the parties have approached
this Court by filing the aforesaid petition seeking quashing of the
FIR and consequently, the proceeding under the POCSO Act.
8. Notice was issued to the respondent No.2 i.e., the
grandmother of the petitioner No.2 and the original complainant.
9. The petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 appeared
before this Court and expressed their no objection to the
quashing of the proceeding in view of the aforesaid facts. Despite
the same, this Court deemed it appropriate to direct the parties
i.e., the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent No.2 to
appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report in terms
of the judgement of this Court dated 12th March, 2026 passed in
the aforesaid petition i.e., the Reference made by the learned
Single Judge before the Division Bench.
10. Accordingly, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee has submitted her report in a sealed envelope. The
said envelope was opened. After perusing the report, it appears
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
that the petitioner No.2 (victim) and the respondent No.2
(original complainant) have given their informed consent to the
quashing of the proceeding as against the petitioner No.1. In the
report, it is stated that though they are not formally married,
they are living together as husband and wife in their own house
along with their children aged six and a half years and five
months. It further appears from the report that the eldest son is
studying in Class-1 in a private school where the monthly fees
are of ₹1500/-. It further appears from the report that the
petitioner No.1 is working as a mason and earing ₹800/- per day
and that the same is sufficient to take care of the household
needs including school fees and other expenditures.
11. The report further mentions that the petitioner No.2 is the
house wife and takes care of the house and the children and
that she is living happily with the petitioner No.1. It is further
disclosed by the petitioner No.2 that although she has passed
Class-VI, she does not wish to resume her education, however, is
interested in cooking and wishes to pursue some course in the
said field, if given an opportunity. It is further stated that she
Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
has not received any benefits from the government or any other
authority. It also appears from the report that she has an
Aadhaar Card.
12. This Court in the Reference answered in the aforesaid
petition, i.e., the judgment 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 ofPage 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:351tribal 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.
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 toPage 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:351ponder 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 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.”
Page 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
13. Considering the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid
petition on a reference, the report of the Secretary, High Court
Legal Services Committee and what was expressed by the parties
in the Court on the last date and keeping in mind the fact, that
the parties i.e., the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are living
together as husband and wife since 2019 and having regard to
the fact, that there are two children born from the said
relationship, the FIR bearing P.S. Case No.05(5) of 2019 under
Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act registered with Diengpasoh
Police Station and consequently, the proceeding pending before
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong being Special POCSO Case No.103 of 2019 are quashed
and set aside.
14. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and the children
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 POCSO
victims) [Nirbhaya Fund];
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
(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.
15. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong are directed
to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the petitioner
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
No.2 and the children are made available to them at the earliest
and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
16. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and the children be placed before this Court on
the next date.
17. The 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 (the DCPO, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi
Hills District, Shillong) to enable them to take steps and comply
with the same.
18. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
19. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:351
20. Stand over to 11th June, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
10.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.17 20:10:33 IST
