Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Man, Citing Survivor’s No-Objection To Quashing As They Live Together With Their 6-Year-Old Son

Petitioner No. 1, then the accused, and petitioner No. 2, the survivor, sought to quash an FIR registered at Khliehriat Women Police Station and the resulting Special POCSO proceeding. They submitted that their relationship was consensual, that they were living together, and that they had a six-year-old son.

The Court obtained reports from the High Court Legal Services Committee and the police. The Legal Services Committee reported that petitioner No. 2 described the relationship as voluntary, did not object to quashing, and wished to continue her education; it also noted that she had not received victim-compensation benefits.

The police report confirmed that the petitioners were living together with their son and that petitioner No. 1 was supporting them financially.

The Court considered its inherent quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Under that precedent, a POCSO proceeding may be quashed by consent only exceptionally and with due care, including where the victim’s consent is informed and free from coercion, the relationship and family circumstances are verified, and the victim’s and child’s social security and access to applicable government schemes are considered. The Court also noted the principle that POCSO offences concern society as a whole, requiring a balance between justice and deterrence, and the welfare of the victim and child.

The Court applied the exceptional-case approach in *Shalenbor Wahlang*. It relied on the Legal Services Committee’s report to assess petitioner No. 2’s consent and circumstances, and on the police report to verify the parties’ cohabitation and their child. Taking account of petitioner No. 2’s no-objection, the parties’ family circumstances, and the reports confirming their living arrangement, the Court found no impediment to quashing.

It separately directed the relevant authorities to facilitate access to applicable schemes and educational support, addressing the victim’s and child’s welfare.

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, to facilitate applicable benefits for petitioner No. 2 and her child, including assistance with her intended studies, and to submit a compliance report.