DAKHUTMEKI SHYLLA AND ANR. vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

2026:MLHC:1233
Serial No. 21
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

Crl.Petn. No. 153 of 2026 with
Crl.M.C. No. 241 of 2026
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on : 03.11.2026

1. Dakhutmeki Shylla, aged 25 years, S/o Smti. Ribiang
Shylla, R/o Pamra Paitthlu Village, P.S. Khliehriat, East
Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. Miss XXX (Victim), aged 22 years
....Petitioners
- versus -
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Station House
Officer, East Jaintia Hills District, P.S. Khliehriat,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. Smti. YYY (Complainant) (36 years) R/o Wapungskur
Village, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
.....Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. A.S. Dey, Sr GA with
Mrs. I. Lyngwa, Addl PP
Ms. P. Susngi, Adv. [R2]

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

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:

Page 1 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
JUDGMENT: (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the 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 Khliehriat Women Police Station,
East Jaintia Hills District, being FIR Case No. 14(5) 2020 and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special
Judge POCSO, Khliehriat, being Special POCSO Case No. 8 of
2021.

4. Quashing is sought on the premise that the relationship
between the petitioners was consensual and that today, the
petitioner No. 1 is aged 25 years old and the petitioner No. 2
aged 22 years old; and that out of the said relationship, the
petitioners have a child who is currently, 6 years old. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in a
live-in relationship with the consent of their family members.

Page 2 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233

5. Vide order dated 07.10.2026, the parties were directed to
appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to enable the Secretary to submit a report as to
whether the consent given by the petitioner No. 2 was an
informed consent; whether the petitioner No. 2 has received any
benefits for herself and her child from any of the State or Central
Government Schemes. The Officer of the concerned Police
Station was also directed to submit a report as to whether the
contents stated in the petition are true and correct, i.e., the
petitioners are in a live-in relationship and have a child aged 6
years old from the said relationship. Pursuant thereto, both, the
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee as well as the
WPSI R. Biam, Khliehriat Women PS, East Jaintia Hills, have
submitted their reports.

6. The report tendered by the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee in a sealed envelope is opened and the
report dated 12.10.2026 is perused. From the said report of the
Secretary, it appears that the petitioner No. 2 entered into a
relationship with the petitioner No. 1 when she was studying in

Page 3 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
Class 10th. She has stated that the relationship was voluntarily
and consensual, pursuant to which she became pregnant and
gave birth to a son in 2020. The report reveals that the petitioner
Nos. 1 and 2 are living together as husband and wife and that
the petitioner No. 1 is taking care of the needs of the petitioner
No. 2 and her son. The report further reveals that the petitioner
No. 2 had enrolled herself for Bachelor of Arts studies in
Philosophy, however, due to financial constraints, she could not
continue her education. The petitioner No. 2 has expressed her
desire in continuing with her education. She has further stated
that she has not received any benefits under the Victim
Compensation Scheme. The report reveals that the petitioner No.
₹
2 has received 6000/- under some Government Scheme till she
attained the age of 18 years, however, she has not received any
benefits under the State or Central Government Schemes. The
petitioner No. 2 has given her no objection to the quashing of the
proceeding as she is happily living/cohabiting with the
petitioner No. 1 as husband and wife.

7. The report of the WPSI R. Biam, Khliehriat Women PS,
East Jaintia Hills dated 27.10.2026, tendered by the learned GA

Page 4 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
is taken on record. The report reveals that the petitioners are
living together as husband and wife alongwith their 6 year old
son. It further appears that the petitioner No. 1 is providing
financial assistance towards the expenses of the petitioner No. 2
and their 6 year old son.

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
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

Page 5 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
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

Page 6 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
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. ”

Page 7 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
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, Khliehriat Women PS, East
Jaintia Hills, the no objection given by the petitioner No. 2 as
well the respondent No. 2, the fact that the petitioners are
cohabiting together since 2023 alongwith their son, there is no

impediment in allowing the petition.

10. The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered
with the Khliehriat Women Police Station, East Jaintia Hills
District, being FIR Case No. 14(5) 2020 and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge POCSO,
Khliehriat, being Special POCSO Case No. 8 of 2021, are
quashed and set aside.

11. Needless to state that the DCPO and the Secretary, East
Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, to extend all such benefits to
the petitioner No. 2 and her child as they may be entitled to
under the State or Central Government Schemes. The said
Schemes are as under:

Page 8 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
(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;

(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women’s Safety, Support and
Empowerment; and

(xv) Insurance or any other scheme.

12. A copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to both the
DCPO, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat and the Secretary,
DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, to enable them to
take steps to ensure that all benefits of the aforesaid Schemes

Page 9 of 10

2026:MLHC:1233
are made available to the petitioner No. 2 and her child as may
be applicable to them. Infact, a support person be appointed to
assist the petitioner No. 2 in enrolling her in academic course
that she intends to pursue.

13. A report to be submitted by the DCPO and the
Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat
before the next date with respect to the benefits extended
to the petitioner No. 2 and her child .

14. With the aforesaid observations, the petition alongwith the
connected miscellaneous application stand disposed of.

15. Although, the petition is disposed of, list the matter for
recording compliance of the directions given to the DCPO, and
the Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat on
st
21 December, 2026 .

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

( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
28.10.2026
“Sylvana PS”

Page 10 of 10

SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 03-11-2026 17:34:45 IST
Verified