THOMAS SHYLLA AND ANR. vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
2026:MLHC:1227
Serial No.07
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.89/2026
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 03.11.2026
1. Shri Thomas Shylla, Son of Smt. Saphina Shylla, R/o
Kyndong Tuber village, West Jaintia Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2. Miss “X” (The victim) R/o xxx .... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Secretary, Home
(Police) Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Khliehriat,
East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. Dr. “Y” (Complainant), R/o YYYYY, through the
Investigating Officer. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr. J. Shylla, Adv
For the Respondents : Ms. I. Syiemlieh, GA vice
Mr. J. Thabah, GA
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 the parties.
Page 1 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
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.
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 Khliehriat Women Police Station,
being Khliehriat WPS Case No.31(7) of 2023, as against the
petitioner No.1 for the alleged offences punishable under Section
5 (j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and consequently,
the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, being Special
(POCSO) Case No.4 of 2024.
4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the relationship
between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who at the relevant time was
19 and 16 years, respectively was a consensual relationship and
that from the said relationship, the petitioners have a daughter,
who is currently two years of age.
nd
5. Pursuant to the order dated 2 July, 2026, the petitioners
were directed to appear before the Secretary, High Court
Page 2 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
Services Committee 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 has received
any benefits from any of the Schemes, either under the State or
Central Government etc.
6. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee has submitted her report in a sealed
th
envelope. The said envelope was opened on 4 August, 2026 and
th
the report dated 14 July, 2026 was taken on record.
7. From a perusal of the report submitted by the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee, it appears that today, the
petitioner No.1 is aged 22 years and the petitioner No.2, 19
years. It appears from the report that the petitioners are living
together as husband and wife, alongwith their child, who is
currently three years of age.
8. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a
photo copy of the marriage certificate of the petitioners
th
evidencing that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married on 15
October, 2026. The said photo copy of the certificate of marriage
Page 3 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
issued by the Marriage Officer, East Jaintia Hills District,
Khliehriat is taken on record.
9. The report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee further reveals that the consent given by the
petitioner No.2 was voluntary without force or coercion and she
has no objection to the quashing of the proceeding initiated
against the petitioner No.1. The report further reveals that
neither the petitioner No.2 nor her child have received any
compensation or benefits in connection with the case either from
the State or Central Government. It further appears from the
report submitted by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee that the mother of petitioner No.2, who has also
appeared before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee has given her no objection to close the case, since
the petitioners were happy in their relationship. It is pertinent
to note that the case in question was registered at the behest of
the doctor, when the petitioner No.2 went to the hospital during
the course of her pregnancy.
Page 4 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
10. 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.
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
Page 5 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
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
Page 6 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
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.”
11. Keeping in mind the observations made in the aforesaid
judgment; the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee; the fact that the parties i.e., the petitioner Nos.1 are
married and have a child from the said marriage, who is
currently three years of age and also keeping in mind the no
objection given by the petitioner No.2 to the quashing of the FIR
Page 7 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
and consequently, the proceeding, there is no impediment if the
petition is allowed.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
with the Khliehriat Women Police Station, being Khliehriat WPS
Case No.31(7) of 2023, as against the petitioner No.1 for the
alleged offences punishable under Section 5 (j)(ii) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and consequently, the proceeding
pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia
Hills District, Khliehriat, being Special (POCSO) Case No.4 of
2024, are quashed and set aside.
13. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.
14. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
15. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her child 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;
Page 8 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
(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.
16. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat are
directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the
Page 9 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
petitioner No.2 and her child are made available to them at the
earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
17. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the
next date.
18. 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
quarterly interest on the said amount and would be free to deal
with the said amount on attaining the age of 25 years.
19. 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), East Jaintia
Hills District, Khliehriat and the Secretary, DLSA, East
Page 10 of 11
2026:MLHC:1227
Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, to enable them to take
steps and comply with the same.
20. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on
st
21 December, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions
given in paragraphs 15 to 18 aforesaid.
21. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
28.10.2026
“ Lam DR-PS”
Page 11 of 11
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 03-11-2026 16:38:37 IST
Verified