Meghalaya High Court
Shri Anbesson Kharbani vs The State Of Meghalaya on 16 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:357
Serial No.04
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.39/2025
Date of Order: 16.04.2026
1. Shri Anbesson Kharbani
2. Smti. A (Survivor) ..... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, through Public Prosecutor.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Mawshynrut Police Station, West
Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
3. WPSI Aidahun Thongni, Nongstoin Women Police Station,
Nongstoin, West Khasi Hill District, Meghalaya.
..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mrs. A. Synrem, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
JUDGMENT:
(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.
3. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.PP waives notice on behalf
of all the respondents.
4. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR
registered with Mawshynrut Police Station being P.S. Case
No.3(2) of 2021 for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the
proceeding being Special POCSO Case No.48 of 2023 pending
before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West
Khasi Hills, Nongstoin.
5. Quashing is sought by consent, on the premise that the
petitioners i.e., petitioner No. 1 (original accused) and Petitioner
No.2 (victim) are living together as husband and wife and have
two children born from the said relationship.
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
6. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition
are as under:-
7. An FIR was lodged by the Officer-in-Charge of Nongstoin
Women Police Station, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin on
the information received by her from the District Child
Protection Officer (DCPO) that there was a teenage pregnancy of
the petitioner No.2. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was lodged by the
Officer-in-Charge of Nongstoin Women Police Station, West
Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin alleging the aforesaid offences, as
the petitioner No.2 was aged 16 years at the relevant time.
Although, the investigation revealed that the minor girl had a
voluntary physical relationship with the petitioner No.1, who at
that time was about 25-26 years old, resulting in the birth of a
male child on 22nd September, 2020 FIR was lodged, having
regard to the fact, that the petitioner No.2 was a minor. After
investigation, chargesheet was filed in the said case and the case
is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin, being Special POCSO Case No.48 of
2023.
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
8. The aforesaid petition has been filed jointly by the
petitioner No.1, who is an accused and the petitioner No.2
(survivor), seeking quashing of the FIR/proceeding by consent.
9. Since this is a petition seeking quashing of the proceeding
by consent, the parties were directed to appear before the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee on 8th April,
2026, in order to enable the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to find out and submit a report whether the consent
given by the petitioner No.2 is an informed consent; whether she
has received any benefits under any of the Schemes either, from
the State or Central Government etc. Pursuant thereto, the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted
her report dated 15th April, 2026 in a sealed envelope. The said
envelope is opened and the said report is taken on record. From
the said report, it appears that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner
No.2 were in a relationship and from the said relationship have
two children, one aged 5.6 years and another 2.6 years. The
report reveals that the petitioners are living together as husband
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
and wife happily and the petitioner No.2 has no objection to the
quashing of the proceeding against the petitioner No.1.
10. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No.1
is working as a mason and is looking after the needs of the
petitioner No.2 and the children. It further appears that the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 could not get married though they
intended to get married, as the petitioner No.2 did not have a
birth certificate and EPIC, which are requisite for marriage in the
church. It further appears from the report that the parties have
applied for the same and the same is under process. It also
further appears that the families of both sides have consented to
the decision to get married. According to the report, the
petitioner No.1 is taking care of all the household expenses and
personal expenditure including school fees etc. and will continue
to take care of the same. It further appears that the petitioners’
elder son is studying in Class-I in a Government L.P. School. The
report reveals that the petitioner No.2 has not received any
compensation or benefits from any of the Schemes, either of the
State or Central Government for herself or for her children. The
Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
report also reveals that the petitioner No.2 has no birth
certificate, EPIC and Aadhaar Card, and that her children were
born at home. She does not have any documents, as a result of
which, she could not apply for the birth certificate of her
children. The report reveals that she would want assistance to
obtain all the aforesaid documents. The report also reveals that
the petitioner No.2 does not wish to resume her studies though
she has completed standard 10 nor is she interested in pursuing
any vocational training, even if given an opportunity.
11. 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 482Page 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:357Cr.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.
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 thePage 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:357family 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
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 thePage 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:357conclusion, 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.”
12. Considering the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Shri
Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of Meghalaya & anr passed in
Crl.Petn.No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026, the report of
the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, the fact
that the parties i.e., the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are living happily
together as husband and wife and have children from the said
relationship and that there is no objection and informed consent
given by the petitioner No.2 to the quashing of the proceeding
initiated against the petitioner No.1, there is no impediment in
allowing the petition.
13. Accordingly, the FIR bearing P.S. Case No.3(2) of 2021
registered with Mawshynrut Police Station for the alleged
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act,
2012 and consequently, the proceeding being Special POCSO
Case No.48 of 2023 pending before the Court of the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin are
quashed.
14. 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 POSCO
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);
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
(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;
(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and
Empowerment; and
(xv) ‘Insurance or any other scheme.
15. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin 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.
16. The authorities concerned to help the petitioner No.2 to
process her birth certificate and that of her children, including
with the EPIC and Aadhaar Cards.
17. Compliance report to be submitted to this Court after nine
weeks.
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:357
18. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to
both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services
Authority and the Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Shillong (the DCPO, West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin as well as the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin) to enable them to take steps and ensure
compliance of the order.
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 29th June, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
16.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.18 15:38:39 IST
