Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Husband, Citing Survivor’s Informed Consent And Their 3-Year-Old Child

Petitioner No. 1, the accused, and petitioner No. 2, the survivor, sought to quash Khliehriat WPS Case No. 31(7) of 2023, registered against petitioner No. 1 under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and the consequential Special (POCSO) Case No. 4 of 2024.

They stated that their relationship was consensual; at the relevant time, petitioner No. 1 was 19 and petitioner No. 2 was 16, and they had a child together.

Following the Court’s direction, the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee reported that petitioner No. 2’s consent to quashing was voluntary, that she had no objection, and that neither she nor the child had received benefits connected with the case.

The report also recorded that the parties were living together with their child and that petitioner No. 2’s mother had no objection to closure of the case.

The FIR had been registered after a doctor reported the matter when petitioner No. 2 attended hospital during pregnancy.

The Court relied on the principles in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, dated 10 April 2026.

Under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC), a POCSO proceeding may, in an exceptional case, be quashed by consent, but the discretion must be exercised cautiously and on the facts of the case.

Relevant considerations include whether the survivor’s consent is genuine and informed, whether the parties are married or living together and have a child, and the survivor’s and child’s social security and eligibility for government schemes.

The precedent also recognises that a POCSO offence is one against society, while requiring a balance between justice, deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Court considered the Legal Services Committee Secretary’s report confirming that petitioner No. 2’s consent was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing.

It also took account of the parties’ family circumstances, their child, petitioner No. 2’s mother’s no-objection, and the absence of prior case-related benefits to petitioner No. 2 or the child.

Applying the factors set out in Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to quashing the proceedings in these circumstances.

It separately directed that applicable welfare schemes be made available to petitioner No. 2 and the child, with compliance to be reported to the Court.

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to facilitate applicable State and Central Government benefits for petitioner No. 2 and her child within eight weeks, and to file a compliance report.

Any compensation granted to petitioner No. 2 under the Victim Compensation Scheme is to be kept in a fixed deposit until she turns 25, with quarterly interest payable to her.