Meghalaya High Court
Shri Vicky Kharsati vs The State Of Meghalaya on 23 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:386
Serial No.02
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.17/2026
Date of Order: 23.04.2026
1. Shri Vicky Kharsati
2. Smti. XYZ ..... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary to the
Govt. of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, Meghalaya.
2. Dr. Mrs. B. Suting, Medical Officer In-Charge Mawryngkneng
PHC, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Page 1 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.PP waives notice on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. By this petition, the petitioner No.1 (original accused) and
petitioner No.2 (victim) seek quashing of the FIR registered with
Mawryngkneng Police Station being P.S. Case No.16(06) of 2022
for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the proceeding being
Special POCSO Case No.46 of 2022 pending before the Court of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills
District.
5. A few facts that are relevant to decide the aforesaid
petition are as under:
6. At the relevant time, the petitioner No.2 (victim) was 17
years and the petitioner No.1 (original accused) was 21 years. It
is the petitioners’ case that they were in a consensual
Page 2 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
relationship and were living together since then as husband and
wife. According to the petitioners, they got married as per the
local practice prevailing in the State of Meghalaya and that the
petitioner No.1 has moved into the petitioner No.2’s house. From
the said relationship, the petitioners have two children, one aged
three years and eight months and another, nine months.
7. Quashing is sought by consent of the petitioner No.2
(victim).
8. The complainant in the present case is the Medical Officer
to whom the petitioner No.2 had gone when she was pregnant,
pursuant to which the Medical Officer disclosed the incident and
lodged an FIR. The prosecutor is representing the said
respondent.
9. It is the petitioners’ case, that they were in love and had
performed a marriage based on mutual trust and free consent;
that they got married with the wishes of their families and are
happily residing together with their two children, one aged three
years and eight months and another, nine months.
Page 3 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
10. This Court vide order dated 20th March, 2026 had directed
the parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee so as to enable the Secretary to submit her
report as to whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2
was an informed consent; whether she had received any benefit
or compensation either from the State or Central Government;
and whether she intends to pursue her education/any
vocational training etc.
11. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee has submitted her report on 15th April, 2026. The
said report was taken on record. In the said report, it is stated
that the petitioner No.1 is presently 23 years of age and the
petitioner No.2 is 20 years and are living together in a joint
family in the house belonging to the petitioner No.2’s mother
along with the two children born from the said relationship. It is
further stated that the petitioner No.1 has completed his 9th
standard and is working as a mason, whereas, the petitioner
No.2 has passed 10th standard and is not working. It is further
stated in the report, that the elder child is studying in Nursery in
Page 4 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
a government school and that the petitioner No.1 contributes
towards the household expenditure and takes care of the
personal expenditure of the petitioner No.2 and her children,
including school fees. From the report, it appears that the
petitioner No.2 is living with the petitioner No.1 on her own
accord happily and voluntarily without force or coercion. The
report further discloses that the petitioner No.2 has not received
any compensation or benefit from either the State or Central
Government for herself or for her children. It also appears that
the respondent No.2 does not wish to resume her studies,
though she is interested in baking and would like to pursue a
vocational training course in the said stream, if given an
opportunity.
12. The aforesaid petition has been filed seeking quashing of
the FIR/proceeding since the parties have got married, as per
the practice prevalent in some of the districts in the State of
Meghalaya and are living together happily with their two
children.
Page 5 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
13. This Court (Coram: Chief Justice and Justice
Thangkhiew) in its judgment passed in Criminal Petition
No.92 of 2023 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 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 thisPage 6 of 11
2026:MLHC:386background 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 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 andPage 7 of 11
2026:MLHC:386directed 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.”
14. Considering the aforesaid factual position, the
observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the
fact, that the petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 are married and
Page 8 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
have two children, one aged three years and eight months and
another nine months; that the petitioner No.2 has no objection
to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding, this Court having regard
to the peculiar facts, deems it appropriate to quash the FIR
registered with Mawryngkneng Police Station being P.S. Case
No.16(6) of 2022 for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the
proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.46 of 2022 pending
before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District.
15. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her 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];
(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 9 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
(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.
16. 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
No.2 and her children are made available to them at the earliest
and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
Page 10 of 11
2026:MLHC:386
17. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her children be placed before this Court on
the next date.
18. 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 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.
19. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
20. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
21. Stand over to 2nd July, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
23.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.23 16:05:00 IST
