KIEWPHRANG SANGRIANG vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

2026:MLHC:1231
Serial No.19
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

Crl.Petn. No. 149 of 2026
Date of order: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 03.11.2026

1. Kiewphrang Sangriang, aged about 24 years, S/o Shri.
Kording Lyngkhoi. R/o Nongshilliang Village, P.S.
Nongstoin, Rambrai Syiemship, West Khasi Hills,
Meghalaya.

2. Smti. A. (Prosecutrix), aged about 19 years, through the
I.O. Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 89 (12) 2021.
....Petitioners
- versus -
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department, East
Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.

3. The Officer in charge, Nongstoin Police Station, West Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya.

4. Investigating Officer, Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 89(12) 2021
U/s 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, Nongstoin, West Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya.

5. Smti. B. (Complainanat) through the Investigating Officer,
Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 89(12) 2021 U/s 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the
POCSO Act, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Page 1 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231

Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Ms. D.D. Fancon, Legal Aid Counsel

For the Respondents : Mr. A.O.I. Bang, GA
Ms. A. Thungwa, GA
Mr. D. Susngi, Adv. [R5]

i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:

JUDGMENT: (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for 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 (survivor) seek quashing of
the FIR registered with the Nongstoin Police Station, being FIR
No. 89 (12) of 2021 and consequently, the proceeding pending
before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin, being Special POCSO Case No. 24 of 2025.

Page 2 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner No.
1 is aged 24 years and the petitioner No. 2 is aged 19 years, and
are living together as husband and wife with the consent of the
respective families alongwith their two children, aged 4 years
and 1 year respectively. The respondent No. 5 is the original
complainant and mother of the petitioner No. 2.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2026, the petitioners
and the respondent No. 5 were directed to appear before the
09.10.2026
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee on
to enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the
consent given by the petitioner No. 2 was an informed consent
and whether the petitioner No. 2 had received any benefits under
any of the Schemes of the State or Central Government, for
herself or for her children, and the Secretary was to also record
whether the respondent No. 5 had any objection to the quashing
of the proceeding.

6. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.09.2026, the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted
her report in a sealed envelope. The said envelope was opened

Page 3 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
and the report dated 09.10.2026 of the Secretary is taken on
record. From the said report, it appears that the petitioner No. 2
was in a romantic relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and that
the relationship between them was consensual. It appears from
the said relationship that the petitioner No. 2 became pregnant
and gave birth to a child in 2022 when she was 16 years of age,
and gave birth to the second child when she was 17 years of age.
From the report, it appears that the petitioner No. 2 has studied
up to Class 9th and that presently, she does not wish to continue
with her studies. It further appears from the report that the
petitioner No. 1 is providing the petitioner No. 2 and the two
children, and that they are living together as husband and wife.
The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 and her two
children have not received any benefits from any of the State or
Central Government Schemes. Although, the petitioner No. 2
expressed before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee that she was interested in vocational training in
bakery, today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the
petitioner No. 2 wants to pursue a vocational course either in
farming or tailoring. The report further reveals that the

Page 4 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
respondent No. 5, who is the original complainant and mother
of the petitioner No. 2, wants the case to come to an end and has
no objection to the quashing of the said case, since the petitioner
No. 1 is taking care of the petitioner No. 2 and the children.
7. Learned GA has also tendered a report of WPSI
D.P.Nongbri, District Special Branch, Nongstoin, West Khasi
Hills. The said report dated 28.10.2026 is taken on record. The
report reveals that what is stated in the petition is true and
correct, i.e., the petitioners are living together as husband and
wife alongwith their two children.

8. 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

Page 5 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
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

Page 6 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
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

Page 7 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
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. Keeping in mind the observations made in the aforesaid
judgment, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee, the report of the WPSI D.P.Nongbri, District Special
Branch, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills, the no objection given by
the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 5 (original
complainant and mother of the petitioner No. 2) and having
regard to the fact that the petitioners are living together as
husband and wife alongwith their two children, there is no
impediment in allowing the petition. The petition is accordingly
allowed and the FIR registered with the Nongstoin Police Station,
being FIR No. 89 (12) of 2021 and consequently, the proceeding
pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi
Hills District, Nongstoin, being Special POCSO Case No. 24 of
2025, are quashed and set aside.

Page 8 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231

10. The petition is disposed of and Rule is made absolute on
the aforesaid terms.

11. Needless to state that the DCPO as well as the Secretary,
DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin to take all such steps
to ensure that the petitioner No. 2 and her two children get
benefits of all Schemes as may be applicable to them. The said
Schemes 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 9 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
(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. A support person be appointed to assist the petitioner No.
2 in availing all the Schemes, including ensuring that the
petitioner No. 2 is enrolled in any vocational training relating to
farming and tailoring.

13. Both, the DCPO as well as the Secretary, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin to submit their reports with respect to the
Schemes made available to the petitioner No. 2 and the children
before the next date.

14. A copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to both the
DCPO, and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin, to enable them to comply with the given
directions .

15. Although, the aforesaid petition is disposed of, list the
matter for recording the benefits extended to the petitioner No.

Page 10 of 11

2026:MLHC:1231
st
2 and her children on 21 December, 2026 , and to enable the
DCPO as well as the Secretary, DLSA to submit their reports.

15. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice

Meghalaya
28.10.2026
“Sylvana PS”

Page 11 of 11

SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 03-11-2026 17:34:06 IST
Verified