Meghalaya High Court quashes POCSO case involving a couple and their infant, directs officials to secure welfare benefits for survivor and child

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and the pending Special POCSO proceeding.

The case arose from the petitioner’s relationship with respondent No. 3, who was 17 when the relationship began. They were living together as husband and wife and had a daughter aged eight to nine months.

The police report confirmed their cohabitation and the petitioner’s support for the survivor and child.

A report by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee recorded the survivor’s account that the relationship began by her own free will; respondent No. 2, her mother and the complainant, did not oppose quashing.

The survivor, now a major, appeared before the Court and reiterated her position. She had received no victim compensation.

1. Whether the FIR and pending POCSO proceeding could be quashed, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, on the basis of the survivor’s informed consent and the parties’ present family circumstances.

2. Whether directions should be issued to secure the survivor’s and child’s access to applicable government schemes and benefits.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash proceedings. The alleged offences were under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Relying on *Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr.*, Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023, dated 10 April 2026, the Court stated that a POCSO case may, in exceptional circumstances, be quashed by consent, notwithstanding the special statute, where the discretion is exercised cautiously and the consent is genuine and informed.

Relevant considerations include the parties’ ages and circumstances, any coercion, whether they are married or living together as husband and wife, and the interests and social security of any child.

The Court may seek verification of the relationship and an independent assessment of the survivor’s consent; applicable government schemes for the survivor and child must also be considered.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in *Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents* concerning government-scheme benefits for POCSO victims and children born from such relationships.

The Court considered the police verification, the Legal Services Committee Secretary’s report, the mother’s lack of objection, and the survivor’s own statement in Court.

It found that the survivor was now an adult, had expressed that the relationship began freely, and continued to live with the petitioner and their child.

Applying the exceptional-case approach in *Shalenbor Wahlang*, the Court found no impediment to quashing.

Separately, because the survivor and child had not received compensation and might qualify for other support, the Court directed the relevant authorities to identify and facilitate applicable benefits.

It directed the District Child Protection Officer and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills, to ensure that the survivor and her daughter receive any benefits for which they are eligible under the listed schemes, and required a compliance report to be placed before the Court. The matter was listed for compliance on 11 November 2026.