01Facts
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.
p. 2 · ¶ 3The 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.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–5Pursuant 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.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5The 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 5Respondent No. 3, the father of Petitioner No. 2 and the original informant, also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.
p. 4 · ¶ 602Issues
i.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.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7ii.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.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 803Law Applied
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.
p. 2 · ¶ 3 · pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7Relying 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.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 7Relevant 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.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7The 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.
p. 6 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4Section 5Section 6
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
04Reasoning
The Court found that the safeguards identified in Shalenbor Wahlang were satisfied.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–6Petitioner 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.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–6The parties had also formally married, both families accepted the relationship, and the original informant had expressly consented to quashing.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–6Considering 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.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 8The 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.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–1605Holding
The petition was allowed and Rule was made absolute.
p. 8 · ¶ 9–11The 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.
p. 8 · ¶ 9–11The 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.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–14If 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.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 15The matter was directed to be listed for recording compliance on 4 November 2026.
p. 10 · ¶ 17Original Court PDF
ALPHONSIUS PARIONG AND ANR.vsSTATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
