POCSO Quashing Permissible Where Parties Marry: Meghalaya HC

Justice triumphs over rigid legalism as the Meghalaya High Court quashed POCSO proceedings against a man who married the survivor, prioritizing the social security of the mother and child over the punitive mandates of the law. In a landmark recognition of matrilineal social structures and adolescent consensual relationships, the Court ruled that sending a husband to jail in such cases would manifest a 'greater injustice' to the family unit.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere presided over the petition seeking the quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin. The Court examined whether the inherent powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 could be invoked to quash non-compoundable offences under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 when the parties have subsequently entered into a valid marriage.

Judicial Rationale on POCSO Quashing

The Court observed that while POCSO offences are technically against society, the law cannot be divorced from ground realities. It noted that the parties were living together as husband and wife with a child born from the relationship and had formally registered their marriage during the pendency of the petition.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...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."

Referencing the precedent in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya & anr, the Bench emphasized that the discretion to quash must be exercised with caution, particularly by ensuring the survivor's consent is 'informed consent'.

Directions Issued for Victim Welfare

The Court has following directions:

"(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), Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang as well as the Secretary, DLSA, Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Mairang 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."

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR registered in 2022 at Mairang Police Station under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complaint was filed by the father of the survivor (Respondent No. 3). During the proceedings, it was revealed that the accused and the survivor had been living together and had a son aged nearly four years. On August 11, 2026, the parties officially registered their marriage.

The Court directed the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority to record the survivor's statement to verify if her consent for quashing was 'informed'. The resulting report confirmed the parties were living happily with their son and the families had no objection. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and the proceedings in Special (POCSO) Case No. 20 of 2024, while mandating the state to provide comprehensive welfare support to the family.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.Petn.No.40/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MLHC:992
Case Title: Shri Alphonsius Pariong & Anr. Vs State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. A. Synrem, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA; Ms. P. Chettri, Adv for R/3

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MEG) 474