POCSO proceedings may be quashed by consent exceptionally where informed consent, marriage, and family circumstances warrant.

The petitioners—Petitioner No. 1, the original accused, and Petitioner No. 2, the survivor—sought quashing of FIR No. 29(08) of 2022 registered at Mairang Police Station under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), the consequential chargesheet, and Special (POCSO) Case No. 20 of 2024 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin.

The petitioners had been living together as husband and wife and had a son aged approximately three years and eight months from the relationship; they subsequently married on 11 August 2026, as evidenced by a marriage certificate.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority examined Petitioner No. 2 to ascertain whether her consent was informed and voluntary and whether she and her child had received benefits under governmental schemes.

The report recorded that Petitioner No. 2 had been over 16 years of age and Petitioner No. 1 had been 21 years of age at the relevant time; they were living together with their child, and both families had no objection to the relationship.

Respondent No. 3, the father of Petitioner No. 2 and the original informant, also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) to quash a POCSO prosecution on the basis of the survivor’s informed consent, subsequent marriage, cohabitation, and the existence of a child.

Whether, in the facts of the case, quashing the FIR, chargesheet, and criminal proceedings would serve the interests of justice, having regard to the survivor’s and child’s social security and the parties’ subsequent marriage.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act and exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023, decided on 10 April 2026, the Court held that a POCSO prosecution may, in exceptional circumstances, be quashed by consent notwithstanding the special nature of the statute, provided the power is exercised with caution and circumspection.

Relevant factors include the age of the parties, whether the survivor’s consent is informed and free from coercion, whether the parties are married or are living together as husband and wife, whether they have children, and whether quashing would avoid greater injustice to the survivor and child.

The Court also emphasised the need to consider applicable State and Central Government welfare schemes for the survivor and child, consistent with the principles referred to in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents.

The Court found that the safeguards identified in Shalenbor Wahlang were satisfied.

Petitioner No. 2’s consent had been independently examined by the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority and was found to be informed; she was now an adult, had been living with Petitioner No. 1, and had a child from the relationship.

The parties had also formally married, both families accepted the relationship, and the original informant had expressly consented to quashing.

Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that continuation of the POCSO proceedings, including the possibility of imprisonment of Petitioner No. 1, would cause greater hardship to Petitioner No. 2 and the child and would not advance the interests of justice.

The Court therefore treated the case as an exceptional situation warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction, while directing that the survivor and her child receive all applicable welfare and compensation benefits.

The Court quashed and set aside FIR No. 29(08) of 2022 registered at Mairang Police Station, the chargesheet, and Special (POCSO) Case No. 20 of 2024 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin.

The District Child Protection Officer and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority were directed to secure all applicable benefits for Petitioner No. 2 and her son under the enumerated State and Central Government schemes within eight weeks and to file a compliance report.

If victim compensation was granted, it was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit until Petitioner No. 2 attained 25 years of age, with quarterly interest payable to her.

The matter was directed to be listed for recording compliance on 4 November 2026.