Meghalaya High Court rules POCSO cases can be quashed by consent in exceptional circumstances

A Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court has ruled that criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be quashed by consent under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even though the law carries no specific provision permitting such quashing — provided the circumstances are genuinely exceptional and the victim's consent is informed and free.

The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice HS Thangkhiew, settles a legal question that had divided two single benches of the same court.

The petition was filed jointly by a 22-year-old man (Petitioner No. 1, the accused) and a 16-year-old girl (Petitioner No. 2, the victim), seeking to quash an FIR registered in May 2019 at Diengpasoh Police Station, Shillong. The FIR had been filed by the girl's grandmother alleging offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, after the girl became pregnant.

The accused and the victim maintained they were in a consensual relationship, had been living together as husband and wife since 2018, and now had a seven-year-old child. Both the victim and her grandmother filed affidavits consenting to the quashing of proceedings.

A single judge had earlier disagreed with a 2022 coordinate bench ruling that had allowed a similar petition, and referred the matter to the Division Bench, framing the key question: can a POCSO case — a special law with overriding effect — be quashed on the basis of consent, and can any personal law or custom override its provisions?

The bench answered clearly that quashing is permissible, but narrowly so.

"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 or custom," the court held. "However, the said discretion has to be used with due care and caution and circumspection in exceptional cases, to do justice."

The court was careful to add that no fixed formula could be prescribed. Each case must be examined on its own facts — the ages of the parties, whether the victim's consent was genuinely informed and free from coercion, whether the couple were married or living together, and whether a child had been born from the relationship.

The judgment devoted considerable attention to what judges across India have begun calling "Romeo–Juliet cases" — consensual teenage relationships that fall foul of the POCSO Act simply because one or both parties are under 18.

The court noted that before the POCSO Act was enacted, the age of consent in India was 16. When the law came into force, it was raised to 18, meaning that even a fully consensual relationship between a 17-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy now constitutes a criminal offence. Consent, the law says, is immaterial.

This has produced a wave of cases — particularly in the 16-to-18 age bracket — where the "victim" later turns hostile, supports the accused, and wants the case dropped. Courts have observed that many such complaints are filed not by the girl herself but by parents, relatives, or doctors who discover the relationship.

The Supreme Court, in State of U.P. v. Anurudh (2026 SCC Online SC 40), had recently directed the Government of India to consider introducing a Romeo–Juliet clause to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from POCSO's reach. The Meghalaya bench took note of this, along with observations from High Courts in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Allahabad that have long flagged the same tension.

"The laudable object of the POCSO Act is to protect minor children from sexual abuse and exploitation," the bench observed, "however, in its application, it has revealed serious issues between legislative design, lived realities and constitutional values."

The court acknowledged that the State of Meghalaya presents a distinct social landscape. Among the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo tribes, matrilineal customs govern family life — lineage passes through the mother, the youngest daughter inherits ancestral property, and the husband typically moves into the wife's household. Marriages by cohabitation are recognised socially and legally. Women in these communities, particularly among the Khasi, enjoy significantly greater autonomy than in many other parts of India.

The Advocate General submitted that applying a rigid uniform age of consent without regard to the consensual nature of a relationship or the age proximity of the parties produces outcomes that are "disproportionately punitive, socially disruptive and contrary to the rehabilitative and protective objectives of child-centric legislation."

The court agreed that these ground realities could not be ignored.

While permitting quashing in appropriate cases, the bench laid down a set of safeguards. Where parties claim to be living together or married, a police report or official verification must be obtained. The victim must file an affidavit recording her no-objection, but before that affidavit is accepted, she must be sent before the Secretary of the Meghalaya Legal Services Authority (MLSA) or the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure the consent is genuinely informed — not given under pressure from family or the accused. A report from that authority must be placed before the court prior to any quashing order.

The court also directed that when quashing a case, judges must take stock of government welfare schemes available to the victim and to any child born of the relationship, in keeping with directions issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025 SCC Online SC 1200).

Having answered the referred question, the bench directed the petition to be placed before a single bench of the Chief Justice for consideration on merits.

The court closed with a word for the State Government: given the large number of POCSO cases — and Romeo–Juliet cases in particular — it is the government's responsibility to spread awareness about the law and its consequences, not just in cities but in schools, colleges, and remote areas across the state.