Meghalaya High Court
Shri Phrangbatnam Kharkongor vs The State Of Meghalaya on 22 April, 2026
2026:MLHC:379
Serial No.06
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.44/2025
Date of Order: 22.04.2026
1. Shri Phrangbatnam Kharkongor
2. Smti. X ..... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department,
Meghalaya.
2. "Y" (Complainant) ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Ms. R. Kharshiing, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with
Ms. S. Kh. Nongrum, GA
Ms. M. Surong, Adv for R/2
Respondent No.2 is present in person
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: No
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Page 1 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Mrs. Yangi, learned AAG waives notice on behalf of
respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Surong waives notice on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4. By this petition, the petitioner No.1 (original accused) and
petitioner No.2 (victim) seek quashing of the FIR registered with
Madanryting Police Station being P.S. Case No.47(05) of 2021 at
the behest of respondent No.2 (original complainant) for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the proceeding being
Special POCSO Case No.101 of 2021 pending before the Court of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills
District.
5. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner
No.1 and petitioner No.2 are married and have a daughter aged
5 years.
Page 2 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
6. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition
are as under:
7. The petitioner No.1 at the relevant time was 23 years and
the petitioner No.2 was 17 years and 8 months. According to the
petitioners, the relationship between them was consensual and
that from the said relationship, the petitioner No.2 gave birth to
a female child on 17th May, 2021. It appears that since the
petitioner No.2 was pregnant, her mother i.e., the respondent
No.2 (original complainant), lodged an FIR with the Madanryting
Police Station on 1st May, 2021, alleging the aforesaid offences
as against the petitioner No.1. After investigation, chargesheet
was filed in the said case before the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District.
8. It appears that the petitioner No.2 in her statement
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC has categorically
stated that she was in consensual romantic relationship with the
petitioner No.1 from 2019 and that they had engaged in physical
relationship and that the said relation was free and voluntary.
According to the petitioner No.2, the said consensual
Page 3 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
relationship led to her becoming pregnant and delivering a
female child in May, 2021. According to the petitioner No.2, the
FIR was lodged by her mother i.e., the respondent No.2. During
the pendency of the aforesaid case, the petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 solemnized their marriage on 3rd April, 2025
before the Marriage Registrar, Shillong. The child is presently 5
years of age.
9. This Court vide order dated 20th March, 2026 had directed
the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to interact
with the petitioner No.2 to find out whether the consent given by
her was an informed consent; whether she had received any
benefit or compensation either from the State or Central
Government; whether she wanted to pursue her
education/vocational training etc. Pursuant thereto, the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted
her report on 16th April, 2026. In the said report filed by the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, it is noted as
under:
Page 4 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
That the parties i.e., the petitioner No.1 and petitioner
No.2 are presently 28 and 23 years of age respectively and are
living together in Laitkor, Mawrie-Nonglum, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong, along with their daughter aged about 5 years;
that the daughter was born out of their relationship in the
respondent No.2’s house; that in 2025, the petitioners
solemnized their marriage before the Marriage Registrar,
Shillong, in the presence of the families from both sides; that the
petitioner No.1 has passed his 9th standard, works as a driver
and earns a salary of ₹8000/- per month; that the petitioners’
daughter aged 5 years is studying in KG; that the petitioner No.2
has also passed 9th standard and has no separate income of her
own; that the petitioner No.1 contributes towards the household
and pays for the personal expenditure of the petitioner No.2 and
her daughter including her school fees; that the respondent No.2
(mother of the petitioner No.2), who runs a small shop also
contributes in some way from the amount earned by her; that
the petitioner No.2 is living with the petitioner No.1 happily and
has got married to him, without force or coercion; that the
petitioner No.2 has no objection if the case is quashed against
Page 5 of 13
2026:MLHC:379the petitioner No.1 since she is happily married and has a child
from the said relationship; that the petitioner No.2 has not
received any compensation or benefit from either the State or
Central Government for herself or for her daughter; and that the
petitioner No.2 has an Aadhaar Card but her daughter is yet to
get an Aadhaar Card.
10. The respondent No.2 is present in person. She has filed
her affidavit dated 21st April, 2026. In the said affidavit, she has
stated that the FIR has been lodged due to some
misunderstanding and emotional distress. She has stated that
the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were in a consensual relationship and
from the said relationship, a female child was born on 17th May,
2021. She has further stated that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got
married before the Marriage Registrar, Shillong and are living
happily together as husband and wife alongwith their child and
that the petitioners are taken care of each other and their child.
She has further stated that she has no objection to the quashing
of the FIR/proceeding. When questioned, she reiterates what is
stated by her in the affidavit.
Page 6 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
11. The aforesaid petition has been filed seeking quashing of
the FIR/proceeding since the parties have got married to each
other on 3rd April, 2025 and since they have a child from the
said relationship. The marriage certificate is annexed to the
petition at page 75 as Annexure-VIII.
12. 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 takePage 7 of 13
2026:MLHC:379their 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 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 ‘NoPage 8 of 13
2026:MLHC:379Objection’ 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 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 childrenPage 9 of 13
2026:MLHC:379about 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.”
13. 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 have a child aged 5 years studying in KG; that the
respondent No.2 (original complainant and mother of the
petitioner No.2) and the petitioner No.2 have no objection to the
quashing of the proceeding, this Court having regard to the
peculiar facts, deems it appropriate to quash the FIR registered
with Madanryting Police Station being P.S. Case No.47(05) 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.101 of 2021 pending before the Court of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills
District.
14. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her child be
extended all benefits as may be applicable to them i.e., the
Page 10 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
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;
(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.
15. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
Page 11 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
(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 child are made available to them at the earliest and
in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
16. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the
next date.
17. 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.
18. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
Page 12 of 13
2026:MLHC:379
19. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
20. Stand over to 1st July, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
22.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.22 18:41:09 IST