POCSO case quashed after 17-year-old survivor and accused lived together for years; Meghalaya HC directs welfare benefits

The petitioner, the original accused, sought quashing of the FIR registered as Sadar P.S. Case No. 274(11) of 2017, the consequential chargesheet, and Special POCSO Case No. 16 of 2025 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

The prosecution concerned a relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, who was aged 17 years, 11 months and 27 days at the relevant time, while the petitioner was aged 18 years.

The petitioner and respondent No. 3 had allegedly been in a romantic relationship, had lived together as husband and wife since 2017, and had a child from the relationship.

Respondent No. 3 stated before the High Court Legal Services Committee that the relationship and physical intimacy were consensual, that she had no objection to quashing the proceedings, and that the petitioner was supporting her and their daughter.

The complainant, respondent No. 2 and mother of respondent No. 3, also stated that the petitioner was taking care of her daughter and that she did not wish to pursue the case.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash a POCSO prosecution, including the FIR, chargesheet and pending proceedings, on the basis of the parties’ subsequent relationship, cohabitation and consent?

Whether respondent No. 3’s consent to quashing was genuine, voluntary and informed, having regard to her age, the circumstances of the relationship, her continued cohabitation with the petitioner, and the reports obtained by the Court?

Whether, while quashing the proceedings, the Court was required to protect the social and economic interests of respondent No. 3 and her child by directing access to applicable State and Central Government welfare and compensation schemes?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and held that such power may, in exceptional circumstances, extend to quashing proceedings under a special statute such as the POCSO Act where the statute does not expressly exclude that jurisdiction.

Relying on Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023, decided on 10 April 2026, the Court held that quashing of a POCSO case by consent requires careful, cautious and fact-specific consideration, including the age of the parties, whether the victim’s consent is informed and free from coercion, whether the parties are married or living together as husband and wife, and whether they have children.

The Court further relied on the principle that a police or other independent report should verify the claimed relationship, and that the victim’s consent should be assessed through an affidavit and a report from the Legal Services Authority or another appropriate authority.

The Court also gave due weight to the welfare and rehabilitation of the victim and child, consistent with the principles referred to in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, as discussed in Shalenbor Wahlang.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim of a long-standing relationship and cohabitation was corroborated by the police report and the report of the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Respondent No. 3’s statement that she had entered the relationship voluntarily and had no objection to quashing was treated as informed and genuine after the Court obtained an independent report regarding her circumstances and consent.

The fact that the parties had lived together as husband and wife since 2017 and had a daughter, together with the petitioner’s continuing support, was considered relevant to the exceptional exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Applying Shalenbor Wahlang, the Court balanced the societal nature of a POCSO offence against the practical consequences of continued prosecution, including the potential disruption of the family unit and prejudice to the victim and child.

The Court nevertheless directed that quashing should not deprive respondent No. 3 or her daughter of any statutory compensation, rehabilitation or welfare benefits; accordingly, it identified relevant schemes and ordered the authorities to facilitate access to them.

The FIR in Sadar P.S. Case No. 274(11) of 2017, the chargesheet, and Special POCSO Case No. 16 of 2025 were quashed and set aside.

The District Child Protection Officer, East Khasi Hills District, and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, were directed to ensure that respondent No. 3 and her daughter received all applicable benefits under the listed welfare, health, education, victim-compensation and child-protection schemes within eight weeks, and to appoint a support person for that purpose.

A compliance report was directed to be filed, and the matter was listed for compliance on 11 November 2026.