Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 17.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 17 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:343
Serial No. 03
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 3 of 2026
Date of order: 17.04.2026
Pyndaplang Jalong
...Petitioner
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya.
2. Miss X (victim/Informant)
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Ms P. Chettri, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP
Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv. [for R2]
i) Whether approved for No
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 10
2026:MLHC:343
3. Mr S. Sengupta, learned Addl PP waives notice on behalf
of the respondent No. 1 and Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, learned
counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
4. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR
registered with the Mawlai Police Station being P.S. Case No. 67
of 2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and
6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Quashing is sought on the premise
that the petitioner (accused) and the respondent No. 2 (victim)
have got married and have a 2-year-old son from the said
relationship.
5. According to the respondent No. 2 (victim), she was in a
romantic relationship with the petitioner since October, 2021
and that the physical relationship between them was
consensual, as a result of which the respondent No. 2 became
pregnant. It is stated that when she disclosed the same to the
petitioner, he suggested an abortion which the respondent No. 2
refused and hence, she lodged an FIR. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the proceeding is
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
presently pending before the Special Judge (POCSO) being
POCSO Case No. 55 of 2024 at Shillong.
6. Since this is a petition seeking the quashing of the
FIR/proceeding with the consent of the respondent No. 2 on the
premise that the parties are married and have a child, the
respondent No. 2 was directed to appear before the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to
submit her report whether the consent given by the respondent
No. 2 is an informed consent; whether she has received any
benefit, either from the State or the Central Government under
any of the Schemes available to POCSO victims and children
born to POCSO victims. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a
sealed envelope. The said envelope is opened and the report
dated 10th April, 2026 is perused and is taken on record. From
the said report, it appears that the respondent No. 2 is a major
and is living in a joint family consisting of her mother,
grandmother, an aunt alongwith the petitioner and their 2-year-
old son. It further appears that the petitioner is working at
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
Mawlai-Mawroh in connection with his work and lives with the
respondent No. 2 and their son on weekends in Bhoi-Umroi.
7. It further appears from the report that in 2025, the
respondent No. 2 and the petitioner solemnised their marriage
in a Church and that the same was attended by the families from
both sides. It is further stated that the petitioner’s earnings are
sufficient for him to take care of the respondent No. 2 and the
child. The respondent No. 2 although has studied upto Class-
VIII, has disclosed that she does not wish to resume with her
studies but is interested in tailoring and pursuing a vocational
training in the said stream, if given an opportunity. The
respondent No. 2 also has an Aadhar Card. The report reveals
that the consent given by her is an informed consent to the
quashing of the proceeding qua the petitioner, with whom she is
married. The report further reveals that the respondent No. 2
has not received any benefit under any Scheme either from the
State Government or the Central Government nor has the son
received any benefits.
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
8. 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 10
2026:MLHC:343mind 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 10
2026:MLHC:343
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.”
9. Thus, keeping in mind the observations made in the said
judgment, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee; the fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.
2 are married and have a 2-year-old son from the said
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
relationship and the consent of the respondent No. 2 is an
informed consent, there is no impediment in allowing the
petition, in the peculiar facts of the case. The petition is,
accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with the Mawlai
Police Station being P.S. Case No. 67 of 2023 and consequently,
the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), being
POCSO Case No. 55 of 2024 at Shillong, are quashed and set
aside.
10. Needless to state, that the respondent No.2 and her son
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];
(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;
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
(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. In order to enable the respondent 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
respondent No.2 and her son are made available to them at the
earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. The respondent No. 2 also be extended the
benefit of any vocational course of her choice, under any of the
Schemes.
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:343
12. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
respondent No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on
the next date.
13. 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 as well as to the DCPO, East Khasi
Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong to enable them to take steps and comply with
the same.
14. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
15. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
16. Stand over to 19th June, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.04.18 15:28:01 IST
Page 10 of 10
