Meghalaya High Court
Pyndap Jalong vs The State Of Meghalaya & Anr on 24 March, 2026
Serial No. 01
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 3 of 2026
Date of order: 24.03.2026
Pyndap Jalong vs The State of Meghalaya & anr
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Ms P. Chettri, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr K. Khan, AAG with
Mr S. Sengupta, Addl PP
Mrs S. Laloo, GA
Ms N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv. [for R2]
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
leave to amend the petition. Leave granted. Amendment to be
carried out forthwith during the course of the day. Similar
corrections to be carried out in the copies handed over to the
State counsel.
2. This is a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered
with the Mawlai Police Station under the POCSO Act, with the
consent of the parties, i.e., the consent of the petitioner
(accused) and the respondent No. 2 (victim).
Page 1 of 4
3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was 26 years of age and
the respondent No. 2 was 15 years 9 months. According to the
petitioner and the respondent No. 2, they were in a romantic
relationship since October, 2021 and that from the said
relationship, the respondent No. 2 has given birth to a child, who
is now aged 2 years.
4. Today, the respondent No. 2 (victim) is aged 18 years and
5 months. According to the petitioner and the respondent No. 2,
they got married in a Church as per Christian rites and rituals,
on 24th November, 2025 and as such, have been living together
as husband and wife happily with their son.
5. The respondent No. 2 has also filed her affidavit stating
therein, that she was in a romantic relationship with the
petitioner since October, 2021 and that the physical relationship
with the petitioner was by consent. She has stated that she took
the decision to lodge an FIR only when she became pregnant and
the petitioner suggested that they abort the child. She has
further stated that the decision taken by her was because of the
said suggestion. She has further stated in the affidavit that she
Page 2 of 4
is living with the petitioner and that on 1st March, 2024, they
were blessed with a boy and that all medical expenses were
borne by the petitioner. She has further stated that on 13th
October, 2025 she attained majority, pursuant to which she got
married to the petitioner on 24th November, 2025 and that she
is living happily with the petitioner. She has further stated that
the petitioner is taking care of her and their son and as such,
she has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding.
6. The respondent No. 2 is present in person, She reiterates
what is stated in the affidavit. She states that she has ‘no
objection’ to the quashing of the FIR/proceeding.
7. Considering the aforesaid, in order to verify that the
consent is an informed consent and whether the respondent No.
2 has received any benefit, either from the State Government or
the Central Government, this Court deems it appropriate to refer
the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to
submit her report with respect to; whether the respondent
No. 2’s consent is an informed consent; whether she has
Page 3 of 4
received any benefit, either from the State Government or the
Central Government; whether she wants to pursue her
education and such other questions as may be necessary.
8. The said report to be submitted to this Court on 14th
April, 2026.
9. Interim relief granted earlier, to continue till the next date.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
24.03.2026
“Sylvana PS”
Page 4 of 4