Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Case, Citing Survivor’s Informed Consent And Couple’s Life Together With Two Children

The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR registered against petitioner No. 1 under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and the related Special POCSO proceeding.

They asserted that their relationship was consensual. At the relevant time, petitioner No. 1 was 19 years and 8 months old and petitioner No. 2 was 16 years and 10 months old.

The petitioners had been living together as husband and wife since 2020, had two children, and petitioner No. 2 was pregnant with their third child.

The Court directed the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee to assess whether petitioner No. 2’s consent was informed and whether she had received benefits under government schemes; it also called for a police report verifying the family circumstances.

The reports confirmed the relationship and family circumstances, and petitioner No. 2 gave no objection to quashing.

The alleged offences were under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Applying its earlier decision in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and another v. State of Meghalaya and another, Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, dated 10 April 2026, the Court held that quashing a POCSO case by consent may be permissible in exceptional cases under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, notwithstanding the special statute, but only with care and upon consideration of the individual circumstances.

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 with children, and the survivor’s and children’s social security.

The Court also relied on the principle that available government schemes and benefits for the survivor and children must be given due consideration.

The Court considered the Legal Services Committee’s report, the police report confirming that the petitioners lived together and had two children, petitioner No. 2’s pregnancy, and her no-objection to quashing.

Applying the framework in Shalenbor Wahlang, it concluded that, in these circumstances, there was no impediment to quashing the FIR and proceeding.

Because petitioner No. 2 and her children had received no benefits under relevant schemes, the Court separately directed the responsible authorities to facilitate their access to applicable support.

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills, to ensure that applicable benefits were made available to petitioner No. 2 and her children within eight weeks, and that a support person be appointed to assist them.

A compliance report was directed, and any victim-compensation amount granted was to be kept in fixed deposit until petitioner No. 2 attained 25 years, with quarterly interest available to her.

The matter was listed for compliance on 21 December 2026.