Meghalaya High Court
2. Smti. Xyz (Prosecutrix) vs Meghalaya on 16 July, 2026
2026:MLHC:739
Serial No. 03
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 62 of 2026
Date of order: 16.07.2026
1. Sitting G. Momin
2. Smti. XYZ (Prosecutrix)
....Petitioners
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor.
2. Shri Arbish M. Sangma, son of shri Benen Ch Marak,
Samin Indikim, PO&PS Songsak, East Garo Hills,
Meghalaya.
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr L.N. Arengh, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP
i) Whether approved for Yes
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.
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
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 petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the
petitioner No. 2 (prosecutrix) seek quashing of the FIR dated
28.06.2023 registered with the Williamnagar Women Police
Station being Williamnagar Women PS Case No.13(06) 2023 for
the alleged offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section
6 of the POCSO Act, and consequently, the proceeding pending
before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Williamnagar being
Special (POCSO) Case No. 14 of 2023.
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties were
in a romantic relationship and thereafter, living together and
today, they are married; and that from the said relationship, the
petitioners have a child, who is currently aged 3 years. It appears
that at the relevant time when the case was registered, the
petitioner No. 1 was 25 years of age and the petitioner No. 2
(prosecutrix) was a minor, below 18 years.
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
5. Vide order dated 21.05.2026, the parties i.e., the
petitioners were sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to
whether the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 is an informed
consent; whether she has received any benefits under any
Schemes of the Central or State Government for herself or her
child; and whether the petitioner No. 2 intends to pursue her
education or vocational training.
6. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed
envelope. The envelope is opened and the report dated
03.06.2026 is perused. From a perusal of the report, it appears
that now, the petitioner No. 1 is 28 years of age and the
petitioner No. 2, 19 years and are living together as husband
and wife in Saminindikim village, East Garo Hills District and
have a 3-year-old son born from the said relationship. It appears
that the petitioners are living in the house belonging to the
petitioner No.2’s mother. Further, it appears from the report that
the petitioner No. 1 has passed standard IX and is working as a
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
labourer and is earning around ₹1000/- per week. It further
appears from the report that the petitioner No. 2 has passed
standard VIII and has no income of her own. It further appears
that the expenditure incurred in the household is taken care of
by the petitioner No. 2’s parents and that the petitioner No. 1
contributes whatever he earns. The report further discloses that
the petitioner No. 2 is living with the petitioner No. 1 on her own
accord, out of love and affection and that she has no objection
to the quashing of the FIR and consequently, the proceeding.
From the report, it further appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and
2 have got married and are living happily together and the
petitioner No. 2 has no complaints.
7. It further appears that the petitioner No. 2 has not
received any compensation or benefits from either the State or
Central Government for herself or her child. It also appears that
the petitioner No. 2 has no Aadhar Card and shall be applying
the same for herself and her child, and that she does not want
to continue with her education, however, she is interested in
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
doing a vocational course in tailoring, baking and confectionery,
if given an opportunity.
8. The Police of Williamnagar Women Police Station have
also submitted their report dated 17.06.2026. From the said
report, it appears that the petitioners are living happily together
as husband and wife with the consent of their family members
and that none of them are interested in pursuing the case. It
further appears from the police report that from the said
relationship between the petitioners, a child was born, who is 3
years of age.
9. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered
the Marriage Certificate to show that the petitioners have got
married on 30.06.2026. A photocopy of the said Marriage
Certificate is taken on record and marked for identification.
10. 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:
Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
“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 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.
Page 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
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).
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
Page 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
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.”
11. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, the fact that a
child aged 3 years was born from the said relationship, the
report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee,
the report of the Williamnagar Women Police Station and the
Marriage Certificate, it appears that the petitioners are happily
Page 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
living together as husband and wife with their child and with the
consent of their families and as such, there is no impediment if
the petition is allowed. To the contrary, if the FIR and the
proceeding are not quashed, it is the petitioner No. 2
(prosecutrix) and the child who will suffer. Also the harsh
realities of a large number of romantic cases culminating into
live-in relationships, having children at a very young age, in the
State of Meghalaya, cannot be ignored, more particularly
amongst the poor strata of the society. Accordingly, the FIR
dated 28.06.2023 registered with the Williamnagar Women
Police Station being Williamnagar Women PS Case No.13(06)
2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the
learned Special Judge (POCSO), Williamnagar being Special
(POCSO) Case No. 14 of 2023, are quashed and set aside.
12. Needles to state, that the petitioner No. 2 and her child
will be extended the benefits as they may be entitled to under
the Schemes of the State or Central Government. The said
Schemes are hereunder;
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
(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;
(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.
13. The DCPO, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar as well
as the Secretary, DLSA, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar
to also take steps to ensure that the petitioner No. 2 and her
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
child, are extended all such benefits as stated aforesaid as they
may be entitled to.
14. 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 Garo
Hills District, Williamnagar and the Secretary, DLSA, East Garo
Hills District, Williamnagar to enable them to take steps and
comply with the same. In the event, compensation is awarded to
the petitioner No. 2 under the Victim Compensation Scheme, the
same is to be kept in a Fixed Deposit standing in the name of
the petitioner No. 2 till she attains the age of 25 years. However,
the petitioner No. 2 will be entitled to quarterly interest on the
said amount. On the petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of 25
years, she is at liberty to decide what she intends to do with the
Fixed Deposit.
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:739
15. A support person also to be appointed to assist the
petitioner No. 2 and her child in getting documents/admission,
etc.
16. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
17. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
18. Compliance report to be submitted by the DCPO, East
Garo Hills District, Williamnagar and the Secretary, DLSA, East
Garo Hills District, Williamnagar with respect to the benefits
extended to the petitioner No. 2 and her child as they may be
entitled to, on the next date.
19. Stand over to 14th September, 2026 for recording
compliance of the directions given.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.07.20 16:21:21 IST
