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 were raising their five-year-old daughter together.
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere passed the order in a petition jointly filed by the accused and the survivor seeking quashing of the FIR and the pending Special POCSO proceedings before the Special Judge, Shillong.
The Court noted that at the time of the relationship, the accused was 23 years old while the survivor was 17 years and 8 months old. According to the survivor’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the relationship between them was consensual and voluntary, which eventually resulted in the birth of a child in May 2021.
The FIR had been lodged by the survivor’s mother after learning about the pregnancy. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the couple solemnised their marriage before the Marriage Registrar, Shillong on April 3, 2025.
The Court had earlier directed the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee to interact with the survivor to ascertain whether her consent to the relationship and to the quashing plea was informed and voluntary. The report submitted before the Court confirmed that the couple, now aged 28 and 23 respectively, were living together happily with their daughter, who was studying in KG.
The report further noted that the survivor had no objection to quashing of the proceedings and had not received any government compensation or benefits available to POCSO survivors and children born from such relationships.
The complainant-mother also filed an affidavit before the Court stating that the FIR had been lodged due to “misunderstanding and emotional distress” and clarified that the relationship between the parties had been consensual. She too expressed no objection to quashing of the proceedings.
Relying on an earlier Division Bench judgment dealing with “Romeo-Juliet” cases in Meghalaya, the Court reiterated that while offences under the POCSO Act are offences against society, courts cannot ignore “lived realities” and the social context prevailing in the State.
The Court reproduced portions of the earlier judgment observing that adolescent consensual relationships culminating in marriage or cohabitation were not uncommon in Meghalaya and that rigid application of criminal law in such cases may cause greater injustice to the survivor and child.
The Bench observed:
“Rendering justice demands not only that the law be applied with precision, but also that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy when the situation/facts of a case warrant it.”
The Court further observed that where the survivor and the accused are married or living together as husband and wife and have children, sending the accused to jail may not serve the cause of justice.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR registered at Madanryting Police Station and the consequential Special POCSO proceedings pending before the trial court.
At the same time, the Court directed authorities to ensure that the survivor and her child are extended benefits under various Central and State welfare schemes, including victim compensation, health insurance, educational assistance, child protection services, and women empowerment schemes.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Ms. R. Kharshiing, Adv
For the Respondents: Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with Ms. S. Kh. Nongrum, GA Ms. M. Surong, Adv for R/2.
Respondent No.2 is present in person.
