Meghalaya High Court quashes POCSO case after survivor, now an adult, marries accused and seeks closure

The petitioners sought to quash Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 27(03) of 2022 and the consequential Special POCSO Case No. 30 of 2024.

Petitioner No. 1 was prosecuted under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act. The petitioners submitted that their relationship was consensual and that they had a four-year-old child.

Petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time but was an adult when the petition was considered. A report from the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee recorded that she wished to live with petitioner No. 1, marry him, and have the case closed.

The petitioners married on 1 September 2026; reports also addressed assistance and benefits available to petitioner No. 2 and the child.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential POCSO proceedings could be quashed in the circumstances, notwithstanding that petitioner No. 2 was a minor when the alleged offences occurred.

2. Whether petitioner No. 2’s expressed wish to end the proceedings could be treated as a genuine and informed basis for quashing, having regard to the reports, the parties’ marriage, their child, and available support schemes.

The prosecution was under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act.

Relying on Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, decided 10 April 2026, the Court applied the principle that the High Court may, in exceptional cases, exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash POCSO proceedings, despite the special statute, where the victim’s consent is genuine and informed and the circumstances justify that course.

The cited decision requires careful consideration of the victim’s age, voluntariness, marriage or cohabitation, children, and access to government schemes; it also contemplates obtaining an affidavit and a report from the relevant legal-services authority to assess informed consent.

The Court considered the Secretary’s report, petitioner No. 2’s stated wish to live with and marry petitioner No. 1, the parties’ subsequent marriage, and their child.

It also considered the reports documenting assistance and benefits obtained or being pursued for petitioner No. 2 and the child, including interim victim compensation and health coverage.

Applying the approach in Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, there was no impediment to quashing the proceedings.

It made the Rule absolute and disposed of the petition.