Meghalaya High Court
Shri Sengchang G. Sangma vs The State Of Meghalaya on 10 April, 2026
Serial No.08 2026:MLHC:352
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.33/2025
Date of Order: 10.04.2026
Shri Sengchang G. Sangma ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary
Department of Home & Police Affairs, Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. Investigating Officer, Tura Women P.S., West Garo Hills
District, Meghalaya.
4. Officer-in-Charge, Tura Women P.S., West Garo Hills
District, Meghalaya.
5. Smti. XYZ (Complainant)
6. Smti. XYZ (Survivor) ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.PP
Mr. M.R. Marak, Adv for R/5&6
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Page 1 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
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. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR
registered with Tura Police Station being Tura Women P.S. Case
No.12(02) 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.20 of 2021 pending
before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West
Garo Hills, Tura.
4. Quashing is sought by consent of the parties i.e., the
petitioner and the respondent No.6 (victim), who are living
together as husband and wife and have one girl child aged about
four and a half years from the said relationship.
5. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition
are as under.
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
6. According to the respondent No.5 (original complainant),
her daughter i.e., the respondent No.6 (victim) was having a love
affair with the petitioner and from the said relationship, her
daughter became pregnant. Pursuant thereto, the respondent
No.5 lodged an FIR as against the petitioner. The respondent
No.6 (victim) was more than 17 years of age and the petitioner
was about 23 years of age at the relevant time. From the said
relationship, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 have a
daughter aged about four and a half years. The parties are living
together for more than four years. On the last date, the
petitioner and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were present in
Court. When questioned they informed that they have no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the fact, that the
petitioner and the respondent No.6 were living together with
their child. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 also have also filed their
affidavits stating therein, that they have no objection to the
quashing of the case having regard to the fact, that the parties
are living together and have a child from the said relationship.
According to the respondent No.6, the relationship was
consensual.
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
7. Considering the aforesaid, the parties were directed to
appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable her to submit a report whether the consent
given by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was an informed consent
and whether the respondent No.6 (victim) had received any
compensation under any of the Schemes either, from the State
or Central Government. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report in a
sealed envelope. The said envelope was opened and the said
report is taken on record. From a perusal of the said report, it
appears that the consent given by respondent No.5 (original
complainant) and respondent No.6 (victim) has been given
voluntarily by them and that there is no condition attached to
the same. It is further stated that the parties are living together
as husband and wife and that there is a daughter aged four and
a half years from the said relationship. It is further stated that
the petitioner is earning about ₹20,000/- per month which is
sufficient to take care of the respondent No.6 and their
daughter. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 has
received compensation of ₹1 lakh from the Meghalaya State
Legal Services Authority through the District Legal Services
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
Authority, West Garo Hills, Tura by way of interim compensation
under the Victim Compensation Scheme, however, she has not
received any other compensation under any other Scheme.
8. This Court in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of
Meghalaya & anr passed in Crl.Petn.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 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
Page 5 of 10
2026:MLHC:352more 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 ‘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
Page 6 of 10
2026:MLHC:352relationship 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 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 of this Court in Shri
Shalenbor Wahlang v. State of Meghalaya & anr passed in
Crl.Petn.No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026, having regard
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
to the fact, that the parties i.e., the petitioner and the
respondent No.6 are living together as husband and wife and
have a child from the said relationship; the objection given by
the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the quashing of the proceeding
initiated against the petitioner and that the consent is an
informed consent, there is no impediment in allowing the
petition.
10. Accordingly, the FIR bearing Tura Women P.S. Case
No.12(02) of 2021 under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act
registered with Tura Police Station and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
West Garo Hills, Tura being Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021
are quashed and set aside.
11. Considering that this is a POCSO case, the Schemes of the
State and Central Government and all benefits thereunder be
extended to the respondent No.6 and her daughter, as may be
applicable. The Schemes are;
(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);
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
(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;
(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and
Empowerment; and
(xv) Insurance or any other scheme.
12. In order to enable the respondent No.6 to get the benefits
of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), West Garo Hills District, Tura as well as the Secretary,
DLSA, West Garo Hills District, Tura are directed to ensure that
the benefits as may be applicable to the respondent No.6 and
her daughter are made available to them at the earliest and in
any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:352
13. 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 (the DCPO, West Garo Hills
District, Tura as well as the Secretary, DLSA, West Garo Hills
District, Tura) to enable them to take steps and comply with the
same.
14. Compliance report to be submitted to this Court within
nine weeks.
15. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
16. The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
17. Stand over to 11th June, 2026 for recording compliance.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
10.04.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.04.17 20:09:24 IST
[ad_1]
Source link
