AIBORLANG IAWPHNIAW AND ANR. vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
2026:MLHC:977
Serial No.02
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.34/2026
Date of order: 02.09.2026
1. Shri Aiborlang Iawphniaw
2. Smti. XYZ .... Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Nongstoin Police Station, West
Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. Investigation Officer (IO), Nongstoin Police Station, West
Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : None
For the Respondents : Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.PP with
Mr. A.S. Dey, GA
i) Whether approved for No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
Since none appears for the petitioners with the assistance
of the learned Addl.PP, the petition is proceeded with.
2. By this petition, the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1
(original accused) and petitioner No.2 (survivor), seek quashing
Page 1 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
of the FIR registered with the Nongstoin Police Station, being FIR
th
No.23(4) 2025 dated 15 April, 2025; the chargesheet bearing
th
final report No.27/2025 dated 12 June, 2025 and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District, being
Special POCSO Case No.27 of 2025.
3. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners
were in a romantic relationship and that the relationship was
consensual. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners on the last date that at the relevant time, the
petitioner No.1 was 22 years of age and the petitioner No.2, 17
years and that today, the petitioner No.1 is aged 23 years and
petitioner No.2 is more than 18 years. It was further submitted
that the petitioners have a child, who is currently nine months
old. The aforesaid submissions are recorded in the order dated
th
12 June, 2026.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the parties i.e., the
petitioners were directed to appear before the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to
Page 2 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
submit her report i.e., whether the petitioners were living
together as husband and wife as contended and whether the
consent given by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent,
etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
th
Committee has submitted her report. The said report dated 12
May, 2025 is perused. From a perusal of the said report, it
appears that the petitioner No.1 is aged 23 years and petitioner
No.2 over 18 years and are living together as husband and wife
in a house owned by respondent No.4, alongwith their nine
months old daughter born from the said relationship. It appears
that the families of both the petitioners have consented to their
living together and their desire to get married. It further appears
that the petitioner No.1 has passed Class-VI and is working as
a mason on daily wages of ₹ 450/- per day and that the petitioner
No.2 has passed Class-IX and has no income of her own. It
further appears from the report submitted by the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee that the entire expenditure
of the family is borne by the petitioner No.1, including the
personal expenditure of the petitioner No.2 and their child. It
further appears from the report that the petitioner No.2 is living
Page 3 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
with the petitioner No.1 happily and voluntarily out of love and
that the relationship was consensual and that the petitioner
No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
5. 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
Page 4 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
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
Page 5 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
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.”
Page 6 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
6. 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, the petitioner No.2 is a major; the fact, that the petitioners
have a child born from the said relationship, who is currently
nine months old; and also having regard to the no objection and
consent 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.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR registered
with the Nongstoin Police Station, being FIR No.23(4) 2025 dated
th
15 April, 2025; the chargesheet bearing final report
th
No.27/2025 dated 12 June, 2025 and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District, being Special POCSO Case
No.27 of 2025, are quashed and set aside.
8. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of on the
aforesaid terms.
Page 7 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
9. Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her
daughter 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.
Page 8 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
10. In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of
the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer
(DCPO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin as well as the
Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin are
directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the
petitioner No.2 and her daughter are made available to them at
the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
11. A compliance report of the benefits extended to the
petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the
next date.
12. 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.
13. The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to
both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services
Page 9 of 10
2026:MLHC:977
Authority, Shillong and Commissioner and Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the District Child
Protection Officer (DCPO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin
and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin,
to enable them to take steps and comply with the same.
14. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the petition on
th
30 October, 2026 for recording compliance of the directions
given in paragraphs 9 to 12 aforesaid.
15. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
02.09.2026
“ Lam DR-PS”
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.09.03 13:17:39 IST