Meghalaya: The Meghalaya High Court has quashed a POCSO case against a man accused of offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after noting that the relationship was consensual, the couple had since married, and they were raising a child together.
The petition was filed by the accused (Petitioner No.1) and the victim (Petitioner No.2), seeking quashing of FIR No. P.S. Case No.47(05) of 2021 registered at Madanryting Police Station, as well as the consequential Special POCSO Case No.101 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District.
At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 23 years old and the victim was 17 years and 8 months old. The victim had stated in her Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements that she had been in a consensual romantic relationship with the accused since 2019 and that their physical relationship was voluntary. The FIR had been lodged by the victim’s mother (Respondent No.2) upon discovering that her daughter was pregnant. A female child was born from the relationship on 17th May, 2021.
During the pendency of the case, the two solemnized their marriage on 3rd April, 2025 before the Marriage Registrar, Shillong. At the time of the order, both parties were adults — the accused aged 28 and the victim aged 23 — and were living together in Laitkor, Mawrie-Nonglum, East Khasi Hills District, along with their five-year-old daughter, who is currently enrolled in kindergarten.
The Court, vide order dated 20th March, 2026, had directed the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to interact with the victim to determine whether her consent to quashing was informed, whether she had received any government compensation, and whether she wished to pursue education or vocational training. The Secretary submitted a report on 16th April, 2026 confirming that the victim was living happily with the accused, had voluntarily consented to the quashing, had not received any government compensation, and that their daughter was yet to obtain an Aadhaar Card.
The original complainant, the victim’s mother, filed an affidavit dated 21st April, 2026 stating that the FIR had been lodged due to misunderstanding and emotional distress, that the relationship was consensual, and that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and proceedings.
The Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Criminal Petition No.92 of 2023 dated 12th March, 2026 (Coram: Chief Justice and Justice Thangkhiew), which had laid down detailed guidelines for the quashing of POCSO cases by consent. The earlier judgment had recognised the ground realities of Meghalaya, including the high incidence of adolescent consensual relationships culminating in elopement, early marriages, and cohabitation, as well as the matrilineal societal structure among the Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia tribes.
The Court had held therein that quashing of a POCSO case under Section 528 BNSS by consent is permissible in exceptional cases, subject to due care and caution, with particular attention to whether the victim’s consent is informed and free from coercion, and whether the parties are married or living together as husband and wife.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the parties are married and have a child studying in kindergarten; that both the victim and the original complainant have no objection to quashing; and that the consent is informed and voluntary. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and the consequential POCSO proceedings.
The Court further directed that the victim (Petitioner No.2) and her child be extended all applicable benefits under government schemes, including the Nirbhaya Fund (Scheme for Care and Support to Victims under the POCSO Act), Mission Vatsalya, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme 2022, Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme, Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY, Mission 1000 Days, Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram, Chief Minister’s Safe Motherhood Scheme, Samagra Shiksha, NALSA Schemes, Mission Shakti, and any other applicable insurance or welfare scheme.
The District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, were directed to ensure that these benefits are made available within eight weeks. A compliance report is to be placed before the Court on the next date fixed, i.e., 1st July, 2026.
The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Shri Phrangbatnam Kharkongor & Anr. v. The State of Meghalaya & Anr.
