Meghalaya HC quashes POCSO case after couple marry and have three children

The Meghalaya High Court has quashed a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against a man after noting that the couple had married, were living together “happily” and had three children from the relationship. 

A division led by Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the accused and the woman, who was a minor when the relationship began. The FIR had been registered at Madanrting Police Station in 2021 under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act. 

According to the court order, the relationship was consensual and began when the two “were in love with each other”. The FIR was lodged by a village head after the girl became pregnant, and it emerged that she was below 18 at the time. The couple later married according to local customs and solemnised the marriage in church in 2025. 

The court took note of a report submitted by the High Court Legal Services Committee, which stated that the couple were living in a joint family with their three children and that the woman had “no objection to the quashing of the proceeding in view of their marriage and children”. She also told officials that she was living with the petitioner “voluntarily, out of love”. 

The report said the man worked as a carpenter earning around Rs 9,000 a month and was supporting the family. It also recorded the woman’s statement that the criminal proceedings had caused severe financial hardship to the family. 

While allowing the petition, the court relied heavily on its earlier judgment in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang vs State of Meghalaya, where it observed that “ground realities in the State of Meghalaya cannot be ignored”, particularly in cases involving adolescent consensual relationships that later result in marriage or children. 

The court also referred to Meghalaya’s matrilineal social structure among Khasi, Garo and Jaintia communities, noting that women in these societies often enjoy greater freedom in choosing partners and remarrying. 

Calling for a balance between “justice, deterrence and rehabilitation”, the bench observed that sending the accused to jail in such cases “would not serve the cause of justice” and could instead harm the woman and the children born from the relationship. 

The court directed that the woman and her children be provided benefits under multiple Central and state welfare schemes, including victim compensation, healthcare and education support schemes. It also instructed authorities to help the woman resume her studies through the government’s “back to school” programme within eight weeks. 

The FIR and the pending proceedings before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, were subsequently quashed. The matter will next be taken up on July 3 for a compliance report on the welfare measures ordered by the court.