ALPHONSIUS PARIONG AND ANR. vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
2026:MLHC:992
Serial No.03
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.40/2026
Date of order: 08.09.2026
1. Shri Alphonsius Pariong
2. Smti. A (survivor) .... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Meghalaya, through Public Prosecutor.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Mairang Police Station, Eastern
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. Shri B Informant in Mairang P.S. Case No.29(08) of 2022.
..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mrs. A. Synrem, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with
Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA
Ms. P. Chettri, Adv for R/3
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 in all the aforesaid petitions and is taken up for
final disposal.
Page 1 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
3. By this petition, the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1
(original accused) and petitioner No.2 (survivor), seek quashing
of the FIR registered with the Mairang Police Station, being FIR
No.29(08) 2022, at the behest of respondent No.3 (father of the
petitioner No.2), for the alleged offences punishable under
Section 5 (j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the
chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding pending before
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills
District, being Special (POCSO) Case No.20 of 2024.
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties were
earlier living together as husband and wife with their son aged
3 years and 8 months born from the said relationship and that
th
the parties have now got married on 11 August, 2026. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has tendered a certificate of marriage
issued by the Registrar of Marriage evidencing marriage of the
th
petitioners on 11 August, 2026.
5. Since this is a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and
consequently, the proceeding with the consent of the parties,
th
vide order dated 12 May, 2026, the parties were directed to
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Authority, in order to enable the Secretary to record the
statement of the petitioner No.2, as to whether the consent given
by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent; whether the
petitioner No.2 and her child have received any benefit from any
of the schemes under the State or Central Government etc.
Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Authority, has submitted her report in a sealed envelope which
th
was opened on 8 June, 2026. From the said report, it appears
that the petitioner No.2 at the relevant time was a minor aged
more than 16 years of age and the petitioner No.1 was 21 years
of age. Today, the petitioner No.1 is aged 25 years and the
petitioner No.2, is more than 20 years. It appears from the report
that they are living together as husband and wife with their son
aged 3 years and 8 months born from the said relationship. It
further appears from the report that the petitioner No.1 is living
with the parents of petitioner No.2 and that both families have
no objection to the same. Today, learned counsel for the
petitioners has tendered a marriage certificate, which shows
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
th
that the petitioners have got married on 11 August, 2026.
Photo copy of the said certificate of marriage is taken on record.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No.3
(original complainant and father of the petitioner No.2) was
th
present on 8 June, 2026, and that his presence is recorded in
the said order. On the said date, he gave his no objection to the
quashing of the proceeding initiated at his behest, since
petitioner No. 1 was taking care of his daughter and the child
born from the said relationship.
7. This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor
Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr , passed in
th
Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10 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.
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
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
Page 5 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
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
Page 6 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
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.”
8. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment; the report of the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee; the fact that
the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and
today, have got married and living happily with their son aged
about 3 years and 8 months; and also having regard to the no
objection given by the petitioner No.2 to the quashing of the FIR
and consequently the proceeding, there is no impediment if the
petition is allowed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
with the Mairang Police Station, being FIR No.29(08) 2022, the
chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding pending before
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills
District, being Special (POCSO) Case No.20 of 2024, are quashed
and set aside.
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
10. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
11. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
12. 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];
(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;
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
(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.
13. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang as well as
the Secretary, DLSA, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang
are directed 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.
14. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the
next date.
15. If compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme
is granted to the petitioner No. 2, the said money received will
be kept in a Fixed Deposit till the petitioner No. 2 attains the age
of 25 years. However, the petitioner No. 2 would be entitled to
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:992
quarterly interest on the said amount and would be free to deal
with the said amount on attaining the age of 25 years.
16. 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 District Child
Protection Officer (DCPO), Eastern West Khasi Hills District,
Mairang and the Secretary, DLSA, Eastern West Khasi Hills
District, Mairang, to enable them to take steps and comply with
the same.
17. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on
th
4 November, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions
given in paragraphs 12 to 15 aforesaid.
18. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
08.09.2026
“ Lam DR-PS”
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.09.08 18:56:26 IST