Meghalaya High Court quashes POCSO case citing consensual relationship, family welfare

The Meghalaya High Court has quashed a POCSO case against a man after noting that the relationship with the complainant was consensual and that the couple are now married with two children, prioritising the welfare of the family over continued prosecution.

The order was passed by Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere in Criminal Petition No. 17 of 2026.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Mawryngkneng Police Station under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The complaint was initially filed by a medical officer after the girl, then 17, sought medical attention during pregnancy.

According to court records, the accused was 21 at the time. The petitioners told the court they were in a consensual relationship, later marrying “as per the local practice prevailing in the State of Meghalaya” and living together as husband and wife.

The couple now have two children — one aged three years and eight months, and another nine months — and are residing together in a joint family.

The court noted that the woman had given her consent to quash the proceedings. A report by the High Court Legal Services Committee confirmed that she was living “on her own accord happily and voluntarily without force or coercion” and had not received any compensation from government schemes.

It also recorded that she is currently not working, has completed Class 10, and expressed interest in pursuing vocational training in baking if given the opportunity.

While acknowledging that offences under the POCSO Act are crimes against society, the court said legal enforcement “cannot be divorced from lived realities” and must balance justice with compassion in exceptional cases.

Referring to earlier rulings, the bench highlighted the prevalence of adolescent consensual relationships in Meghalaya, often leading to early marriage or cohabitation recognised by local customs. It also pointed to the state’s matrilineal system, where lineage and inheritance pass through women and “the husband often moves into the wife’s house”.

The court observed that in such circumstances, sending the accused to jail “would not serve the cause of justice” and could instead harm the woman and their children.

Taking these factors into account, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR and the pending trial before the Special POCSO Court in Shillong.

The bench also directed authorities to ensure that the woman and her children receive benefits under various state and central welfare schemes, including health coverage, child protection services and educational support, within eight weeks.

A compliance report has been sought, with the matter listed for follow-up on July 2, 2026.