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

The petitioners—Petitioner No. 1, the original accused, and Petitioner No. 2, the survivor—sought quashing of FIR No. 17(5) of 2020 registered at the Women Police Station, East Jaintia Hills, Khliehriat, together with the consequential chargesheet and Special POCSO Case No. 11 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills.

The petition was based on the assertion that the parties had been in a romantic relationship, had subsequently married, and had two children.

A report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee recorded that Petitioner No. 1 was 28 years old, Petitioner No. 2 was approximately 19 years old, and that they were formally married and living together with their two sons.

Petitioner No. 2 stated that she wished the case to be closed and that her consent was voluntary, informed, and free from coercion; the original complainant, Petitioner No. 2’s mother, also supported closure of the case.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

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 may be permissible in exceptional circumstances, despite POCSO offences implicating societal interests, provided the discretion is exercised cautiously and the survivor’s consent is genuine, informed, voluntary, and free from coercion.

Relevant factors include the parties’ ages, marriage or recognised cohabitation, existence of children, verification by an appropriate authority, and consideration of the survivor’s and children’s social security.

The Court also relied on the principle that justice must balance deterrence with rehabilitation and must account for lived social realities, including Meghalaya’s customary and matrilineal context.

Welfare schemes and victim-compensation measures available under the POCSO framework and applicable government schemes must be given due consideration.

The Court treated the Secretary’s report as verification that Petitioner No. 2’s consent was informed and voluntary: she was an adult, had formally married Petitioner No. 1, was living with him and their two children, and expressly wished to withdraw from the prosecution without coercion or conditions.

The Court further noted that the complainant-mother supported closure of the case.

Applying Shalenbor Wahlang, it concluded that the unusual and exceptional circumstances—marriage, stable cohabitation, two children, the survivor’s informed consent, and the potential hardship to the family if the accused were imprisoned—made continuation of the prosecution unnecessary and potentially unjust.

At the same time, recognising the survivor’s continuing entitlement to state assistance, the Court directed the relevant authorities to facilitate applicable welfare, child-protection, health, education, legal-aid, and victim-compensation schemes.

The petition was allowed and disposed of.

The District Child Protection Officer and Secretary, DLSA, East Jaintia Hills, were directed to ensure that applicable benefits were provided to Petitioner No. 2 and her two children within eight weeks, with a compliance report to be filed before the Court.

If victim compensation was awarded, it was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit until Petitioner No. 2 attained 25 years, while permitting her to receive quarterly interest and deal with the amount thereafter.

The matter was directed to be listed on 29 October 2026 for recording compliance.