Meghalaya HC quashes POCSO case against man after finding consensual relationship, directs welfare benefits for mother and child

The petitioners—Petitioner No. 1, the original accused, and Petitioner No. 2, the survivor—sought quashing of FIR No. 23(4) of 2025 registered at Nongstoin Police Station, the chargesheet/final report No. 27 of 2025, and Special POCSO Case No. 27 of 2025 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin.

The petitioners asserted that they had been in a romantic and consensual relationship; at the relevant time, Petitioner No. 1 was 22 years old and Petitioner No. 2 was 17 years old, while by the time of consideration Petitioner No. 2 had attained majority.

They were living together as husband and wife and had a nine-month-old daughter born from the relationship.

The Court directed verification by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, regarding the petitioners’ living arrangement and whether Petitioner No. 2’s consent was informed and voluntary.

The report stated that the parties were living together voluntarily, that their families accepted the arrangement, that Petitioner No. 2 was living happily with Petitioner No. 1, and that she had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash a prosecution under the POCSO Act where the survivor and accused were in a consensual relationship and were living together with a child.

2. Whether Petitioner No. 2’s consent to quashing was genuine, informed, voluntary, and free from coercion.

3. Whether the social and welfare interests of Petitioner No. 2 and her child required directions for access to applicable governmental schemes and compensation.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. , Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023, decided on 10 April 2026, the Court held that quashing of a POCSO prosecution by consent may be permissible in exceptional cases, despite the POCSO Act being a special statute, provided the discretion is exercised with care, caution and circumspection.

Relevant considerations include the parties’ ages, whether the survivor’s consent is informed and free from coercion, whether the parties are married or living together as husband and wife, whether they have children, and whether quashing would avoid greater injustice.

The Court also relied on the principle that the welfare and social security of the survivor and child, including benefits under applicable State and Central Government schemes, must be considered, referring to Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents .

The Court treated the Legal Services Committee’s report as independent verification that Petitioner No. 2 was now a major, was living voluntarily and happily with Petitioner No. 1, and had given informed consent to quashing.

The existence of a child, the parties’ continued cohabitation as husband and wife, family acceptance, and the absence of any objection from Petitioner No. 2 were considered circumstances making the case exceptional under the principles in Shalenbor Wahlang .

Although the Court acknowledged that a POCSO offence is ordinarily an offence against society and not merely against an individual, it concluded that sending Petitioner No. 1 to prison in these circumstances would cause substantial hardship to Petitioner No. 2 and the child and would not advance the ends of justice.

The Court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings while directing that the survivor and child receive all applicable welfare, health, educational, legal-aid and compensation benefits.

The Court quashed FIR No. 23(4) of 2025 dated 15 April 2025, final report/chargesheet No. 27 of 2025 dated 12 June 2025, and Special POCSO Case No. 27 of 2025 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin.

The District Child Protection Officer and Secretary, DLSA, West Khasi Hills District, were directed to secure the applicable government schemes and benefits for Petitioner No. 2 and her daughter within eight weeks and submit a compliance report.

Any compensation awarded under the Victim Compensation Scheme was directed to be placed in a fixed deposit until Petitioner No. 2 attained 25 years of age, with quarterly interest payable to her.

The matter was listed for recording compliance on 30 October 2026.