Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case After Informed-Consent Review Of Survivor Living With Accused And Their 2 Children

The accused and the prosecutrix sought quashing of Nongstoin P.S. FIR No. 89 (12) of 2021, registered under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, and the resulting Special POCSO Case No. 24 of 2025.

They were living together as husband and wife with two children. The prosecutrix’s mother, the original complainant, supported quashing.

At the Court’s direction, the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee reported on the prosecutrix’s relationship with the accused, her circumstances and access to government schemes; a police report confirmed that the couple lived together with their children.

The reports also indicated that the prosecutrix and children had not received benefits under government schemes and that she wished to pursue vocational training.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied its decision in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, dated 10 April 2026, which held that a POCSO case may be quashed in exceptional circumstances, notwithstanding the special statute, where the Court carefully assesses the facts, including the victim’s age, the genuineness and informed nature of her consent, the parties’ relationship and family circumstances, and the consequences for the victim and children.

The precedent also called for verification of cohabitation and consent through appropriate reports and for due consideration of available government schemes; the discretion must be exercised cautiously, balancing justice, deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Court considered the Legal Services Committee Secretary’s report, the police report confirming the couple’s cohabitation, and the absence of objection from both the prosecutrix and her mother.

It also took account of the couple’s two children and the reported circumstances of their family life.

Applying the factors set out in Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court found no impediment to quashing the FIR and proceeding.

However, because the prosecutrix and children had not received government-scheme benefits, the Court paired that relief with directions for support and access to applicable schemes and vocational training.

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and the Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills, to assist the prosecutrix and her children in accessing applicable schemes, appoint a support person, facilitate her enrolment in vocational training in farming or tailoring, and submit reports on the benefits provided.

The matter was listed for those reports on 21 December 2026.