Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Survivor’s Husband, Citing Their Life Together With Two Children

The accused and the original complainant/survivor jointly sought quashing of Sadar P.S. Case No. 20(01) of 2024 and the connected Special (POCSO) No. 33 of 2024.

They were married, lived together as husband and wife, and had two children.

The Court directed the survivor to meet the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to assess whether her consent was informed and to determine whether she or her children had received government-scheme benefits.

The Secretary’s report recorded that the couple had entered a romantic relationship in 2021, had two children, and were living together; it also addressed the survivor’s education, vocational-training preference, and compensation.

Other reports described assistance and steps concerning compensation, vocational training, and identity documents.

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

Under Section 528 of the BNSS, a POCSO proceeding may be quashed by consent in exceptional cases, despite the public character of the offence, where the court carefully considers the circumstances, including the survivor’s age, whether consent is informed and free from coercion, the parties’ relationship and family circumstances, and the interests and social security of any child.

The precedent further stresses verification of the relationship and an assessment of informed consent, including through a report from the Legal Services Authority; available government assistance for the survivor and children must also be considered.

Applying that approach, the Court considered the Legal Services Committee’s report and the undisputed circumstances that the petitioners were married, lived together as husband and wife, and had two children.

It also considered the reports regarding compensation and assistance available to the survivor and children.

In light of those circumstances and the principles in Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court concluded that continuing the proceeding against the accused would serve no purpose.

It directed that assistance be rendered to the survivor and her children by the relevant authorities, including the DCPO and DLSA, and directed the Registry to forward the order to them.