Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Man, Citing Survivor’s Informed Consent And Their Life With Their 5-Year-Old Child

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR and consequential POCSO proceedings could be quashed, in the circumstances of the case, on the basis of Petitioner No. 2’s informed consent and the parties’ family circumstances.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the pending POCSO proceedings against Petitioner No. 1.

It also directed

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and Secretary, DLSA, to facilitate applicable benefits within eight weeks, appoint a support person, and submit a compliance report; any victim-compensation amount was to be kept in fixed deposit until Petitioner No. 2 attained 25, with quarterly interest available to her.

01Facts

The petitioners sought quashing of Mairang P.S. Case No. 24(07) of 2021, registered against Petitioner No. 1 for alleged offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and the consequential Special (POCSO) Case No. 38 of 2022.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

They submitted that their relationship was consensual, that they were living together as husband and wife, and that they had a child.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

Following the Court’s directions, the High Court Legal Services Committee reported that Petitioner No. 2’s consent was informed and that she wished to continue her education; the police report confirmed that the petitioners were cohabiting with their five-year-old child.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–9

Petitioner No. 2 gave no objection to quashing.

p. 8 · ¶ 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR and consequential POCSO proceedings could be quashed, in the circumstances of the case, on the basis of Petitioner No. 2’s informed consent and the parties’ family circumstances.

pp. 2, 7–8 · ¶ 3–4, 10–11

ii.2. Whether directions should be issued to secure applicable welfare, educational and support benefits for Petitioner No. 2 and her child following quashing.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 15–19

03Law Applied

The Court relied on its decision in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023, which held that quashing a POCSO case by consent may be considered in exceptional cases, notwithstanding the public character of the offence, where the facts warrant it.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 10

The discretion must be exercised with care and on the circumstances of each case, including whether the survivor’s consent is informed and free from coercion, and whether the parties are married or living together and have a child. The Court may obtain verification from the Legal Services Authority and police, consider the survivor’s affidavit of no objection, and give due weight to available government schemes for the survivor and child.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10

The Court also referred to Section 528 of the BNSS as the provision under which such quashing discretion may be exercised.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

Applying the case-specific approach in Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court considered the Legal Services Committee’s report, the police verification, Petitioner No. 2’s no-objection, and the fact that the petitioners were living together with their child.

pp. 3–4, 8 · ¶ 5–9, 11

The reports supported the conclusion that the relationship had been consensual and that Petitioner No. 2’s consent to quashing was informed. In these circumstances, the Court found no impediment to allowing the petition, while separately directing that applicable benefits and support be provided to Petitioner No. 2 and her child.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 11, 15–19