Meghalaya High Court
Shri Subham Sunar vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By The … on 20 May, 2026
2026:MLHC:486
Serial No. 02
Daily List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 63 of 2025
Date of order: 20.05.2026
1. Shri Subham Sunar
2. Smti XYZ
...Petitioners
- versus -
1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Govt. of Meghalaya Home (Police) Department, Meghalaya.
2. Smti. Nitu Sewa
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr M.F. Qureshi, Adv. with
Ms D. Pohsnem, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA with
Ms S. Shyam, GA
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
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.
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
3. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR
registered with the Rynjah Police Station being P.S. Case No.
86(6) of 2023 as against the petitioner No. 1 for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners i.e., the
petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (victim) have
got married and are living together and have a son from the said
relationship, who is presently 2 years and 6 months.
4. Few facts as are necessary to decide the petition are as
under:
On 21st June, 2023, the respondent No. 2 i.e., aunt of the
petitioner No. 2 (victim) filed a missing report to the police
stating therein, that her niece i.e., the petitioner No. 2 was
missing. It appears that the respondent No. 2 later learnt that
her niece (victim) had gone to Bihar with a friend. It further
appears that the Officer-in-Charge of Nongmensong Outpost,
East Khasi Hills, Shillong conducted a preliminary inquiry and
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:486located the petitioner No. 2 (victim) and subsequently, registered
an FIR as against the petitioner No. 1, alleging the aforesaid
offence.
5. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner
No. 2 was a minor, who had run away with the petitioner No. 1
and they were both intercepted at the Patna Railway junction
and brought back to Shillong. The petitioner No. 2’s statement
revealed that she was in a relationship with the petitioner No. 1
and that the relationship between them was consensual,
resulting in her pregnancy. After investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed and the case is presently pending before the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner
No. 2 got married, on the petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of
majority. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are living
together with their child, who is currently 2 years 6 months in
Lucknow, where the petitioner No. 1 is working.
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
7. This Court vide order dated 10th April, 2026 directed the
parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable the Secretary to record the statement of the
petitioner No. 2, whether the consent given by the petitioner No.
2 was an informed consent; whether she had received any
benefits from the schemes, of either the State or Central
Government; whether the petitioner No. 2 wished to pursue her
education etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee has submitted her report dated 23rd April,
2026. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that the
petitioner No. 1, aged 23 years and the petitioner No. 2 aged 19
odd years have been living together right from the time the
petitioner No. 2 became pregnant; that they formally got married
on 29th August, 2025 in the Office of the Registrar of Marriage,
Shillong, on the petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of majority.
The report further reveals that the marriage was solemnised in
the presence of the families of both the sides.
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
8. Both, the petitioners are present in Court alongwith the
petitioner No. 2’s mother and the respondent No. 2 (aunt of
victim). After interacting with the parties, it appears that the
petitioners are living together with their child in Lucknow where
the petitioner No. 1 is working. The report of the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee reveals that the petitioner No. 2
has passed her Tenth Standard. When questioned, the petitioner
No. 2 states that she would like to continue her education. It
also appears that the petitioner No. 1 is taking care of the
expenses of the petitioner No. 2 and their child. The petitioner
No. 2 states that she is happily residing with the petitioner No.
1 and prays that the FIR/proceeding initiated by the police
against the petitioner No. 1 be quashed. The report also reveals
that the petitioner No. 2 has not received any compensation or
benefit from either the State or Central Government, for herself
or her child. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2
intends to resume her studies and is also interested in
vocational training i.e., in beautician’s course, if given an
opportunity.
Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
9. 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:
“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 theirPage 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:486partners, 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 aPage 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:486victim 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
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.”
Page 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
10. Considering what is stated in the aforesaid judgment of
this Court, what is disclosed by the parties i.e., their marriage
and a child from the said relationship and having regard to the
report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee,
this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the proceeding
qua the petitioner No. 1, would be prejudicial and not in the
interest of the petitioner No. 2 (victim), who is the petitioner No.
1’s wife and to the child born from the said relationship.
Accordingly, the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station
being P.S. Case No. 86(6) of 2023 and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Shillong are quashed and set aside.
11. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her son 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 POCSO
victims) [Nirbhaya Fund];
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
(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.
12. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong are directed
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the petitioner
No.2 and her son, are made available to them at the earliest and
in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. The petitioner No. 2 also be extended the benefit of any
vocational course of her choice, under any of the Schemes or be
enrolled back in school.
13. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the
next date.
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 Khasi
Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong to enable them to take steps and comply with
the same.
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:486
15. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
16. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
17. Stand over to 15th July, 2026 for recording compliance.
18. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:53 IST
