Meghalaya HC quashes six POCSO cases involving couples with children, orders welfare support

The Meghalaya High Court has quashed six cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, involving couples who were in adolescent relationships and are now living together as families, with children.

Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere passed the orders in six separate petitions, taking into account the present circumstances of the couples, reports confirming their relationships and the voluntary consent of the women to the closure of the proceedings.

The cases were registered at police stations in East Jaintia Hills, East Khasi Hills and Eastern West Khasi Hills districts. The court also directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the women and their children receive benefits under applicable State and Central government welfare schemes.

In one of the cases, Thomas Shylla from Kyndong Tuber village in West Jaintia Hills and his partner sought the quashing of an FIR registered at Khliehriat Women Police Station in July 2023 under the POCSO Act.

The couple were 19 and 16 years old respectively when they entered into the relationship and have a daughter. They subsequently got married on October 15, 2026.

A report submitted by the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee confirmed that the couple were living together with their three-year-old daughter. It also stated that the woman's consent to quashing the case was voluntary and without force or coercion.

The case had been registered following the intervention of a doctor when the woman visited a hospital during her pregnancy. Neither she nor her daughter had received compensation or benefits under government schemes in connection with the case.

In another case from East Jaintia Hills, Dakhutmeki Shylla and his 22-year-old partner approached the court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Khliehriat Women Police Station in 2020.

The couple, who have a six-year-old son, were living together as husband and wife with the consent of their families.

According to the report submitted by the High Court Legal Services Committee, the woman entered the relationship while studying in Class 10 and described it as voluntary and consensual. She had subsequently given birth to a son in 2020.

The report also revealed that she had enrolled for a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy but could not continue her studies because of financial constraints. She expressed a desire to resume her education.

The woman had not received compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. Although she had received Rs 6,000 under a government scheme until she turned 18, she had not received other benefits under State or Central government schemes.

In a third case from Shillong, a couple approached the court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Sadar Police Station in January 2024.

The couple are married and have two children, aged four and three. A report submitted to the court confirmed their present family circumstances and the woman's consent to quashing the proceedings.

The court also took note of the fact that the woman, who had studied up to Class 8, was interested in vocational training as a beautician rather than resuming formal education.

The woman and her children had not received benefits under government schemes. The court was informed that Rs 4 lakh had been recommended as compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme, of which Rs 2 lakh had been disbursed as interim compensation and kept in a fixed deposit in her name.

The family was also in the process of legally placing their elder daughter for adoption with a close relative, with the procedure underway in Williamnagar.

In another case involving an FIR registered at Madanriting Police Station in December 2020, Obenshon Lyngshiang and his partner sought the quashing of proceedings under the POCSO Act.

The couple, who were 19 years and eight months and 16 years and 10 months old respectively when the relationship began, have two children aged five and three. They have been living together as husband and wife since 2020, and the woman was pregnant with their third child when the matter came before the court.

A report by the High Court Legal Services Committee stated that the woman described the relationship as consensual and did not wish to resume her education or undergo vocational training. Neither she nor her children had received benefits under government schemes or compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

A separate police report confirmed that the couple were living together with their children.

The remaining two cases were registered at Mairang Police Station in Eastern West Khasi Hills district.

In one of the matters, Pynshaistar Kharkrang, his partner and her father approached the court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered in October 2021. The woman's father had originally lodged the complaint.

The couple, who had been living together for several years, married on October 27, 2026. They have three children — a four-year-old daughter, a two-and-a-half-year-old son and an infant aged around five months.

The High Court Legal Services Committee's report stated that the woman had been living with Kharkrang voluntarily, without force or coercion, and had no objection to the quashing of the proceedings.

The report also revealed that she was interested in pursuing vocational training in tailoring, although she did not wish to continue her formal education. She and her children had not received compensation or government benefits.

Kharkrang was the sole breadwinner of the family and worked as a daily-wage labourer.

In the other Mairang case, a couple sought the quashing of an FIR registered in July 2021 at the behest of a medical and health officer.

The couple have a five-year-old daughter and are living together as husband and wife. The report submitted to the court stated that the relationship was voluntary and that the woman, who is now 21, was pursuing her education in Class 9.

She also expressed a desire to acquire tailoring skills in the future and continue her studies. Her partner, who was 23 at the time of the relationship, is employed as a salesman at a motor company and earns around Rs 7,000 a month.

Neither the woman nor her daughter had received benefits under government welfare schemes.

In deciding the six petitions, the High Court relied on its April 10, 2026, judgment in the case of Shatenbor Wahlang versus the State of Meghalaya, which examined the circumstances in which POCSO proceedings arising from adolescent relationships could be quashed.

The court had observed that Meghalaya's social realities, including adolescent relationships resulting in early marriage or couples living together with children, could not be ignored while considering such petitions.

It also referred to the State's matrilineal social structure and the importance of protecting the economic security and social stability of women and children.

However, the court made it clear that quashing POCSO proceedings by consent must be considered only in exceptional circumstances and with due caution.

It observed that the decision must depend on the facts of each case, including the ages of the parties, whether the woman's consent is informed and free from coercion, and whether the couple are married or living together with children.

The court also directed that reports from the High Court Legal Services Committee or other appropriate authorities be obtained to verify the woman's consent and the couple's living arrangements.

Observing that a POCSO offence is not merely a case against an individual but an offence against society as a whole, the court said the 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," the court observed.

It further noted that a balance must be maintained between justice, deterrence and rehabilitation, adding that sending a man to jail in cases where the woman and the accused are living together as a family with children could cause hardship to the woman and the children.

The court also stressed the responsibility of the State Government to create awareness about the POCSO Act and its provisions, particularly in schools, colleges and remote areas.

Alongside quashing the FIRs and the pending proceedings, the court directed the concerned District Child Protection Officers and District Legal Services Authorities to ensure that the women and their children receive all applicable benefits under government schemes.

These include the POCSO victim support scheme under the Nirbhaya Fund, Mission Vatsalya, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, the Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, Meghalaya Health Insurance Scheme, Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY, Mission 1000 Days-Meghalaya and Mission Shakti, among others.

The court also directed authorities to facilitate educational and vocational opportunities for the women who expressed an interest in continuing their studies or acquiring skills.

In cases where compensation is granted under the Victim Compensation Scheme, the court directed that the amount be kept in a fixed deposit until the woman turns 25, while allowing her to receive quarterly interest.

The concerned authorities have been asked to submit compliance reports on the welfare measures and assistance extended to the women and their children. Several of the matters have been listed for December 21, 2026, to review compliance with the directions.