Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Young Father After Survivor’s Consent, As Both Now 18 And Live Together With Their 7-Month-Old Child

The victim and the accused were below 18 years at the time of the alleged offence under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The victim’s mother, the victim, and the accused petitioned to quash the FIR and proceedings, stating that the couple had been living together as husband and wife and had a seven-month-old child.

By the time of the petition, both had turned 18.

The High Court Legal Services Committee reported that the victim’s consent to quashing was voluntary and informed, and that neither she nor her child had initially received government-scheme benefits.

The Court subsequently received a report confirming disbursement of interim compensation and assistance with other entitlements.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) permits the High Court to quash proceedings in exceptional cases, including proceedings under a special statute, where doing so is necessary to secure justice and the statute does not specifically exclude that power.

In Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr., Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, decided 10 April 2026, the Court stated that quashing a POCSO case by consent requires careful, case-specific consideration, including whether the victim’s consent is informed and free from coercion, whether the parties are living together or married and have a child, and whether the victim and child’s welfare and access to government schemes have been addressed.

The Court also recognised that POCSO offences concern society as a whole, requiring a balance between justice, deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Court applied the exceptional-case approach in Shalenbor Wahlang.

It considered that both parties were adults by the time of the decision, had been living together for two years, and had a child.

The Legal Services Committee’s report supported the victim’s voluntary and informed consent, and her mother also did not object to quashing.

The Court further took account of the steps taken to secure compensation and assist the victim and child in accessing relevant benefits and documents.

In those circumstances, it found no impediment to quashing the proceedings.

It directed the Secretary/DCPO, East Khasi Hills District, to appoint a Support Person to assist the victim and her child in obtaining any further help or assistance required.