RAKHEL MAWPAT AND ORS. vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA

2026:MLHC:1265
Serial No.03
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MLHC010014132026


Crl.Petn. No. 124 of 2026
Date of Decision: 10.11.2026
Uploaded on: 11.11.2026

1. Rakhel Mawpat, W/o (L) Tista Khiewtam, R/o Umniuh –
Nongrim Village, Pynursla, East Khasi Hills district,
Meghalaya.

2. Miss X (victim) aged 17 years, In Pynursla PS Case No.
49/2025 (Through her mother Smti. Rakhel Mawpat.

3. Mr. B. (accused/CICL) in Pynursla P.S. Case No. 49/2025.
....Petitioners
- versus -
The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Commissioner &
Secretary, Home (Police) Department.
....Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Deb, Legal Aid Counsel

For the Respondents : Mrs. N.G. Shylla, PP

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)

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
leave to amend the name of the petitioner No. 3 since he is a

Page 1 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
child in conflict with law. Leave granted. Amendment to be
carried out forthwith during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final
disposal.

4. By this petition, the petitioners, i.e., the petitioner No. 1
(mother of the petitioner No. 2 and original complainant),
petitioner No. 2 (survivor) and petitioner seek quashing of the
FIR registered with the Pynursla Police Station, being Pynursla
P.S. Case No. 49 of 2025 against the petitioner No. 3 for the
alleged offences punishable under Section 5 read with Section 6
of the POCSO Act.

5. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioner Nos.
2 and 3 were in a consensual relationship, and were living
together as husband and wife for about 3 years and have a child
aged 7 months from the said relationship. The petitioner No. 2

Page 2 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
has now become a major aged 18 years and the petitioner No. 3
(accused) has also recently turned 18 years.

6. Vide order dated 18.08.2026, the petitioners appeared
before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to
enable the Secretary to submit her report as to whether the
consent given by the petitioner No. 2 (survivor) was an informed
consent, whether the petitioner and her child had received any
benefits under any of the Schemes of either the State or Central
Government. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee has submitted her report. The said report
dated 26.08.2026 is perused.

7. From the said report, it appears that at the time of the
incident, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were below 18 years. Today,
the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are majors, above 18 years of age.
They have been living together for the last 2 years alongwith
their child, who is currently about 7 months of old. It appears
from the said report that the petitioner No. 3 has passed Class
9th and is working as a daily wage labourer and is taking care
of the household expenditure and of the petitioner No. 2 and

Page 3 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
their child. It further appears from the report that the petitioner
No. 2 is not keen in pursuing her education, however, is
interested in a doing a vocational training course in cooking, if
given an opportunity. The report further reveals that neither the
petitioner No. 2 nor her child have received any benefits from
any of the State or Central Government Schemes. The report
reveals that the petitioner No. 2 has given her consent to
quashing of the case as the relationship was consensual and
voluntarily. The petitioner No. 1 (original complainant and
mother of the petitioner No. 2) has also given her consent to the
quashing of the FIR.

8. Infact, vide order dated 03.09.2026, having regard to the
report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee
that the petitioner No. 2 nor her child had received any benefits
under any of the State or Central Government Schemes, this
Court directed the Secretary, DLSA as well as the DCPO, East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong, to ensure that the petitioner No. 2
as well as her child receive all such benefits as they may be

Page 4 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
entitled to, under any of the State/Central Government
Schemes.
9. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, DLSA has submitted a
report. The said report dated 04.11.2026, reveals that interim
compensation of ₹ 1,50,000/- under the Meghalaya Victim
Compensation Scheme, 2022, has been disbursed to the
survivor, i.e., the petitioner No. 2 on 29.10.2026 and that the
same has been deposited with the assistance of the Support
Person in the petitioner No. 2 ‘s bank, in a Fixed Deposit, till the
petitioner No. 2 attains the age of 25 years. However, the
petitioner No. 2 will be entitled to quarterly interest on the said
amount. If further appears that the District Legal Services
Authority, Shillong in coordination with the DCPO has assisted
the survivor in applying and obtaining MHIS documents. It
further appears that the Secretary, DLSA and the DCPO, East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong are assisting the petitioner No. 2 in
applying for PAN card, Aadhar card and birth certificate for her
child. It further appears that the some of the Schemes, the
survivor is not entitled and some which she is entitled to, has
been informed to her.

Page 5 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265

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

Page 6 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
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 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
Re: Right to
directed by the Apex Court in the case of
Privacy of Adolescents (supra) .

Page 7 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265

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.”

11. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment, the fact that the
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are both, majors, above 18 years of age
and are living together as husband and wife for the last 2 years,
and have a child aged 7 months old from the said relationship,
and also having regard to the no objection given by the petitioner

Page 8 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
Nos. 1 and 2, there is no impediment in allowing the petition.
The petition is, accordingly allowed and the FIR registered with
the Pynursla Police Station, being Pynursla P.S. Case No. 49 of
2025 and consequently, the proceeding, being Juvenile Justice
Case No. 54 of 2026 pending before the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, stand quashed and set aside.

12. Needless to state, that the Secretary/DCPO, East Khasi
Hills District, Shillong to appoint a Support Person to assist the
petitioner No. 2 , in availing any other help/assistance, as she
may require for herself and her child.

13. 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 DCPO, East Khasi
Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong to enable them to take steps to appoint a
support person, to assist the petitioner No. 2 and her child.


Page 9 of 10

2026:MLHC:1265
14. The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the
aforesaid terms.

15. Petition is, accordingly disposed of.


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



( Revati Mohite Dere )
Chief Justice

Meghalaya
10.11.2026
“Sylvana PS”

Page 10 of 10

SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 11-11-2026 12:44:22 IST
Verified