Judgment (Oral):

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective 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 petitioners, i.e., the petitioner No. 1(accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (victim) seek quashing of the FIR vide P.S. Case No. 15 (2) of 2021 registered with the Madanrting Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners are married and have three children.

4. A few facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petition are as under:

The petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time and the petitioner No. 1 was a major. According to the petitioners, they were in a consensual physical relationship as they were in love with each other. It appears that after the petitioner No. 2 became pregnant and the same came to be known, the village head filed an FIR as against the petitioner No. 1, since the petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time. It further appears that after the petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, the parties i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 got married as per the prevalent customs. They further solemnised their marriage before the Parish Priest of Good Shepherd Parish, Jongksha, Meghalaya. The petitioners have three children, one aged 4 years, who is presently studying in Nursery, another son aged 2 years 4 months and a daughter, who is 4 months old. To the petition are annexed the copies of certificates of Baptism of the children.

5. This Court vide order dated 9th April, 2026, had directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable her to submit her report whether the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 was an informed consent and whether what was stated in the petition was correct; whether the petitioner No. 2 has received any benefit from any schemes, either under the State or Central Government etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report dated 17th April, 2026 in a sealed envelope. The envelope is opened and the report is perused.

6. On a perusal of the report, it appears that the parties could only speak in Khasi language; that the petitioners are living in a joint family in the house belonging of the petitioner No. 2’s mother alongwith their two sons and one daughter. It further appears from the report that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are formally married in the Church in April, 2025, in the presence of the families of both sides. In the report, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is working as a carpenter and earns about 9000/- per month and that he contributes to the household expenditure and takes care of the personal expenditure of the petitioner No. 2 and their children. The petitioner No. 1 has assured to continue to take care of them. According to the report, the petitioner No. 2 disclosed that she has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding in view of their marriage and children, as she was in a relationship with the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily, out of love. It further appears from the report that, the petitioner No. 2 has disclosed that she is happily living with the petitioner No. 1 and has no complaint against him. She has further disclosed that neither she nor her children have received any compensation/benefits from the Government or any other authority in connection with the case. Infact, the petitioner No. 2 made a grievance that they had to spend a lot of money due to the case against the petitioner No. 1 resulting in a lot of hardship to them. The petitioner No. 2 has disclosed that she has an Aadhar card and will be applying for the children. As far as studies/vocation is concerned, the report reveals that the petitioner No. 2 has expressed her desire to resume her studies and is also interested in tailoring and would like to pursue a course/vocational training in the said stream, if given an opportunity.

7. The police were also directed to submit a report with respect to whether what was stated in the petition was correct i.e., the parties are married and have children. Pursuant thereto, the Officer-in-Charge of Madanrting Police Station has submitted a report. The said report reveals that the parties i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 are living happily together as husband and wife and have three children. The said report is taken on record.

8. 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 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 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.”

9. Considering the aforesaid judgment, the peculiar facts of this case, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, the fact that the parties are married and have three children from the said relationship, continuation of the proceeding qua the petitioner No. 1, will not be in the interest of the petitioner No. 2 and the three children born from the said relationship. Today, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are married and living together. The report of the Secretary, HCLSC also reveals the hardships particularly, financial hardships faced by the petitioner No. 2, after the case was registered against the petitioner No. 1.

10. The petitioner No. 2 is present in person. She reiterates what is stated hereinabove.

11. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her three 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 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.

12. Needless also to state, that since the petitioner No. 2 is interested in resuming her studies, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong to take appropriate steps, to ensure that the petitioner No. 2 is registered under the “back to school” scheme of the Government. The same to be done within eight weeks from today.

13. Petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing P.S. Case No. 15 (2) of 2021 registered with the Madanrting Police Station and consequently, the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong are quashed and set aside.

14. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the petitioner No.2 and her three children, be placed before this Court on the next date.

15. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong, the 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.

16. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.

17. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.

18. Stand over to 3rd July, 2026 for recording compliance.