Meghalaya High Court
Biangbor Rynjah Alias Eric vs State Of Meghalaya on 7 May, 2026
2026:MLHC:436
Serial No. 02
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 21 of 2026
Date of order: 07.05.2026
1. Biangbor Rynjah alias Eric
2. Smti XYZ
.....Petitioners
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department,
Meghalaya.
2. Shri Bokkhraw Songthiang
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr M.F. Qureshi, Adv. with
Ms D. Pohsnem, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP with
Mrs S. Laloo, GA
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Page 1 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
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 the petitioner No. 2 (victim) seek quashing of the
FIR vide P.S. Case No. 15 (2) of 2021 registered with the
Madanrting Police Station for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Shillong. Quashing is sought on the premise
that the petitioners are married and have three children.
4. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition
are as under:
The petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time and
the petitioner No. 1 was a major. According to the petitioners,
they were in a consensual physical relationship as they were in
love with each other. It appears that after the petitioner No. 2
became pregnant and the same came to be known, the village
head filed an FIR as against the petitioner No. 1, since the
Page 2 of 11
2026:MLHC:436petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time. It further
appears that after the petitioner No. 2 attained the age of
majority, the parties i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner
No. 2 got married as per the prevalent customs. They further
solemnised their marriage before the Parish Priest of Good
Shepherd Parish, Jongksha, Meghalaya. The petitioners have
three children, one aged 4 years, who is presently studying in
Nursery, another son aged 2 years 4 months and a daughter,
who is 4 months old. To the petition are annexed the copies of
certificates of Baptism of the children.
5. This Court vide order dated 9th April, 2026, had directed
the parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee to enable her to submit her report whether
the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 was an informed
consent and whether what was stated in the petition was
correct; whether the petitioner No. 2 has received any benefit
from any schemes, either under the State or Central
Government etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court
Legal Services Committee has submitted her report dated 17th
Page 3 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
April, 2026 in a sealed envelope. The envelope is opened and the
report is perused.
6. On a perusal of the report, it appears that the parties
could only speak in Khasi language; that the petitioners are
living in a joint family in the house belonging of the petitioner
No. 2’s mother alongwith their two sons and one daughter. It
further appears from the report that the petitioner No. 1 and
petitioner No. 2 are formally married in the Church in April,
2025, in the presence of the families of both sides. In the report,
it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is working as a carpenter
and earns about 9000/- per month and that he contributes to
the household expenditure and takes care of the personal
expenditure of the petitioner No. 2 and their children. The
petitioner No. 1 has assured to continue to take care of them.
According to the report, the petitioner No. 2 disclosed that she
has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding in view of
their marriage and children, as she was in a relationship with
the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily, out of love. It further appears
from the report that, the petitioner No. 2 has disclosed that she
is happily living with the petitioner No. 1 and has no complaint
Page 4 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
against him. She has further disclosed that neither she nor her
children have received any compensation/benefits from the
Government or any other authority in connection with the case.
Infact, the petitioner No. 2 made a grievance that they had to
spend a lot of money due to the case against the petitioner No.
1 resulting in a lot of hardship to them. The petitioner No. 2 has
disclosed that she has an Aadhar card and will be applying for
the children. As far as studies/vocation is concerned, the report
reveals that the petitioner No. 2 has expressed her desire to
resume her studies and is also interested in tailoring and would
like to pursue a course/vocational training in the said stream, if
given an opportunity.
7. The police were also directed to submit a report with
respect to whether what was stated in the petition was correct
i.e., the parties are married and have children. Pursuant thereto,
the Officer-in-Charge of Madanrting Police Station has
submitted a report. The said report reveals that the parties i.e.,
the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 are living happily
together as husband and wife and have three children. The said
report is taken on record.
Page 5 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
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 casePage 6 of 11
2026:MLHC:436seeking 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 and
directed by the Apex Court in the case of Re: Right to
Privacy of Adolescents (supra).
Page 7 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
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. Considering the aforesaid judgment, the peculiar facts of
this case, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee, the fact that the parties are married and have three
children from the said relationship, continuation of the
Page 8 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
proceeding qua the petitioner No. 1, will not be in the interest of
the petitioner No. 2 and the three children born from the said
relationship. Today, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are married and
living together. The report of the Secretary, HCLSC also reveals
the hardships particularly, financial hardships faced by the
petitioner No. 2, after the case was registered against the
petitioner No. 1.
10. The petitioner No. 2 is present in person. She reiterates
what is stated hereinabove.
11. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her three
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);
(vii) Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya;
Page 9 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
(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.
12. Needless also to state, that since the petitioner No. 2 is
interested in resuming her studies, the District Child Protection
Officer (DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong to take
appropriate steps, to ensure that the petitioner No. 2 is
registered under the “back to school” scheme of the Government.
The same to be done within eight weeks from today.
13. Petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing P.S.
Case No. 15 (2) of 2021 registered with the Madanrting Police
Station and consequently, the proceeding pending before the
Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong are quashed and set aside.
Page 10 of 11
2026:MLHC:436
14. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her three children, be placed before this
Court on the next date.
15. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to
both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services
Authority, Shillong, the 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.
16. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
17. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
18. Stand over to 3rd July, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.05.08 12:16:54 IST
