Subham Sunar & Ors vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

Revati Mohite Dere, CJ

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal.

By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station being P.S. Case No. 86(6) of 2023 as against the petitioner No. 1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. Quashing is sought on the premise that the petitioners i.e., the petitioner No. 1 (accused) and the petitioner No. 2 (victim) have got married and are living together and have a son from the said relationship, who is presently 2 years and 6 months.

Few facts as are necessary to decide the petition are as under:

On 21st June, 2023, the respondent No. 2 i.e., aunt of the petitioner No. 2 (victim) filed a missing report to the police stating therein, that her niece i.e., the petitioner No. 2 was missing. It appears that the respondent No. 2 later learnt that her niece (victim) had gone to Bihar with a friend. It further appears that the Officer-in-Charge of Nongmensong Outpost, East Khasi Hills, Shillong conducted a preliminary inquiry and located the petitioner No. 2 (victim) and subsequently, registered an FIR as against the petitioner No. 1, alleging the aforesaid offence.

It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner No. 2 was a minor, who had run away with the petitioner No. 1 and they were both intercepted at the Patna Railway junction and brought back to Shillong. The petitioner No. 2's statement revealed that she was in a relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and that the relationship between them was consensual, resulting in her pregnancy. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the case is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 got married, on the petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of majority. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are living together with their child, who is currently 2 years 6 months in Lucknow, where the petitioner No. 1 is working.

This Court vide order dated 10th April, 2026 directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to enable the Secretary to record the statement of the petitioner No. 2, whether the consent given by the petitioner No.2 was an informed consent; whether she had received any benefits from the schemes, of either the State or Central Government; whether the petitioner No. 2 wished to pursue her education etc. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee has submitted her report dated 23rd April, 2026. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that the petitioner No. 1, aged 23 years and the petitioner No. 2 aged 19 odd years have been living together right from the time the petitioner No. 2 became pregnant; that they formally got married on 29th August, 2025 in the Office of the Registrar of Marriage, Shillong, on the petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of majority. The report further reveals that the marriage was solemnised in the presence of the families of both the sides.

Both, the petitioners are present in Court alongwith the petitioner No. 2's mother and the respondent No. 2 (aunt of victim). After interacting with the parties, it appears that the petitioners are living together with their child in Lucknow where the petitioner No. 1 is working. The report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee reveals that the petitioner No. 2 has passed her Tenth Standard. When questioned, the petitioner No. 2 states that she would like to continue her education. It also appears that the petitioner No. 1 is taking care of the expenses of the petitioner No. 2 and their child. The petitioner No. 2 states that she is happily residing with the petitioner No.1 and prays that the FIR/proceeding initiated by the police against the petitioner No. 1 be quashed. The report also reveals that the petitioner No. 2 has not received any compensation or benefit from either the State or Central Government, for herself or her child. The report further reveals that the petitioner No. 2 intends to resume her studies and is also interested in vocational training i.e., in beautician's course, if given an opportunity.

This Court in its judgment in the case of Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr. passed in Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023 dated 10th April, 2026 in paragraphs 31, 33, 34 and 35 has observed as hereunder:

"31. The ground realities in the State of Meghalaya cannot be ignored and lost sight of. It shows high incidents of adolescent consensual relationships culminating in elopement and early marriage or living together, as husband and wife, which is recognised by the society. Infact, cases of adolescent relationships where the parties i.e., the victim and the boy have got married or are living together as husband and wife and have a child from the said relationship are far too many, resulting in parties filing petitions under Section 528 BNSS (earlier, Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceeding by consent of the parties.

.....

What also cannot be lost sight of is, that in Meghalaya, matrilineal system is a rare, ancient societal structure among the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes, where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother. Children take their mother's surname, the youngest daughter inherits the property (is the custodian of ancestral property) and the husband often moves into the wife's house. The system is believed to have originated from an agrarian society and the need to protect the family structure, ensuring women's economic security, social stability and the preservation of tribal identity. Infact, in the Khasi community, women have more independence than women in many patriarchal communities, including the freedom to select their partners, remarry without shame and take an active role in public places like market place and businesses. It is in this background that this Court would have to consider a case seeking quashing of a POCSO case by consent, keeping in mind all factors, including the girl's (victim's) and her child's social security, by ensuring that she and the child get the benefit of the government schemes, including under the POCSO Act.

Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, quashing of a POCSO case under Section 528 BNSS by consent, is permissible even if it is a special statute and there is no specific exclusion of any present law/custom. However, the said discretion has to be used with due care and caution and circumspection in exceptional cases, to do justice. As noted earlier, there cannot be any straitjacket formula as to in which cases the said discretion can or cannot be exercised, inasmuch as, that would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case i.e., the age of the parties coming before the court; whether the consent given by the victim is an informed consent and not under coercion of the family members or the boy; that the victim and the accused are married and have a child or are living together as husband and wife, as per the customs in the State of Meghalaya, etc. Where parties are living together as husband and wife or are married, a police report, or a report from any authority, be called for, verifying the said claim. Also, while considering whether the consent of the victim is an 'informed consent', it is necessary that the victim places her affidavit on record giving her 'No Objection' to the quashing of the case. That, before such an affidavit is accepted, in order to ensure that the consent is an informed consent, the victim may be sent before the Secretary, MLSA or Secretary, DLSA to ascertain whether the consent is an informed consent, by giving her time to ponder over the same; and a report be called for, before such quashing petition is considered. While quashing the case, the Government schemes that may be available to a victim in a POCSO Act and the child born from the said relationship also be given due weightage as suggested and directed by the Apex Court in the case of Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (supra).

No doubt, we are conscious of the fact that a case under POCSO Act, is not a case against an individual, but is an offence against the society as a whole, however, the administration or enforcement of the law cannot be divorced from lived realities. 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. Thus, it is necessary to maintain a fine balance between the competing interests of justice, deterrence and rehabilitation. Where the victim and the boy are married or are living together as husband and wife (and recognised), and have a child/children, sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child born from the said consensual relationship, as ultimately, the aim of the law is to do justice. Thus, in cases where the court comes to the conclusion, that the consent given by the victim is a genuine and informed consent and that it would be greater injustice to send the boy to jail, instead of letting the parties live together as one family, the Court may consider quashing the case, pending trial, keeping in mind what is stated aforesaid. We may note, considering the large number of POCSO cases, in particular Romeo - Juliet cases, it is the responsibility of the State Government to create awareness amongst the people, including the children about the provisions of the POCSO Act, its punishment, etc., not only in the cities but also in the interior and remote places, including schools, colleges, etc."

Considering what is stated in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, what is disclosed by the parties i.e., their marriage and a child from the said relationship and having regard to the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the proceeding qua the petitioner No. 1, would be prejudicial and not in the interest of the petitioner No. 2 (victim), who is the petitioner No. 1's wife and to the child born from the said relationship. Accordingly, the FIR registered with the Rynjah Police Station being P.S. Case No. 86(6) of 2023 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong are quashed and set aside.

Needless to state, that the petitioner No.2 and her son be extended all benefits as may be applicable to them i.e., the Schemes from either the State or Central Government, which are as under;

(i) Scheme for Care and Support to Victims of under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act (exclusively for POCSO victims) [Nirbhaya Fund];

(ii) Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Child Protection Services);

(iii) Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) Scheme;

(iv) Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, 2022;

(v) Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme;

(vi) Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY (free health);

(vii) Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya;

(viii) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK);

(ix) Chief Minister's Safe Motherhood Scheme or CM-SMS;

(x) Special Training Programme for age-appropriate admission of Out of School Children (OoSC) and Back to School Campaign;

(xi) Samagra Siksha (Back to School);

(xii) NALSA (Child-Friendly Legal Services for Children) Scheme 2024;

(xiii) NALSA (Legal Services to Persons with Mental Illness and Persons with intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024; and

(xiv) Mission Shakti-Women's Safety, Support and Empowerment; and

(xv) Insurance or any other scheme.

In order to enable the petitioner No.2 to get the benefits of the above said schemes, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as well as the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong are directed to ensure that the benefits as may be applicable to the petitioner No.2 and her son, are made available to them at the earliest and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner No. 2 also be extended the benefit of any vocational course of her choice, under any of the Schemes or be enrolled back in school.

A compliance report of the benefits extended to the petitioner No.2 and her child be placed before this Court on the next date.

The Registry to forward forthwith a copy of this order to both, the Member Secretary, Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority, Shillong and Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Shillong as well as to the DCPO, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the Secretary, DLSA, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong to enable them to take steps and comply with the same.

The petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.

Petition is, accordingly disposed of.

Stand over to 15th July, 2026 for recording compliance.

All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.