The Case Was Quashed, And Fifteen Welfare Schemes Were Ordered For Her
A POCSO prosecution was ended where the two are now married with a two-year-old. The Chief Justice did not stop at quashing — she listed every benefit the young mother is entitled to.
The Court quashed the FIR and the pending POCSO proceeding. Following the Supreme Court, where the consent was genuine and informed and the parties are married or living as husband and wife with a child, sending the boy to jail would cause great injustice to the victim and the child. The Court further directed the district child protection officer and legal services authority to secure fifteen named Central and State schemes for her and her child.
- The test is genuine and informed consent, judged case by case, not a rule that marriage ends a prosecution.
- The aim of the law is to do justice — the phrase the Supreme Court used and this Court applied.
- Quashing was only half the order. Fifteen schemes were named, from the Nirbhaya Fund to Mission Vatsalya to Ayushman Bharat.
- Compliance is being checked. The petition was listed again for 15 October 2026 to record it.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong
- Citation
- 2026:MLHC:901
- Case
- Crl. Petn. No. 113 of 2026
- Decided
- 18 August 2026
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; FIR and POCSO proceeding quashed, welfare directions issued
The principle applied
The Court set out the Supreme Court's 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 have a child, sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice; it would cause great injustice to the victim and to the child born of the relationship, the aim of the law being to do justice.
So where a court concludes that the consent given was genuine and informed, and that it would be the greater injustice to send the boy to jail rather than let the parties live together as one family, it may consider quashing the case pending trial. The Supreme Court also placed on the State the responsibility to create awareness about the POCSO Act, including in interior and remote places, schools and colleges.
Why this case fell within it
The Court had before it the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.
The parties had been in a relationship and living together as husband and wife and are now married; they have a child aged two; both had no objection to the quashing; and she is happily living with him and their child.
There was accordingly no impediment to allowing the petition. The FIR and the POCSO case pending before the Special Judge were quashed and set aside.
The directions that followed
The district child protection officer and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority were directed to ensure that all benefits she and her child are entitled to under Central and State schemes are given.
Fifteen were named, among them the Scheme for Care and Support to Victims under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act from the Nirbhaya Fund, Mission Vatsalya, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, the Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme 2022, health insurance and Ayushman Bharat, Mission 1000 Days, Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram, the Chief Minister's Safe Motherhood Scheme, age-appropriate readmission for out-of-school children and Samagra Siksha, two NALSA schemes, and Mission Shakti.
A copy was directed to go to the State Legal Services Authority, the Social Welfare Department and the district officers, and the petition was listed on 15 October 2026 to record compliance.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Does marrying the complainant end a POCSO case?
Not by itself. The court must be satisfied the consent was genuine and informed and that jailing the boy would be the greater injustice.
What did the Court do besides quashing?
It directed district officers to secure fifteen named Central and State welfare schemes for her and her child, and listed the matter to check compliance.
Bringing a quashing petition in a consensual relationship case
- Get the Legal Services Committee's report; the Court relied on it before anything else.
- Establish the present position on the record — marriage, the child, and the young woman's own stated position.
- Address consent as genuine and informed on the facts, and do not argue that marriage alone is enough.
- Ask for the welfare directions as well as the quashing; they are what the family actually lives on.
Source. High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, 2026:MLHC:901, Crl. Petn. No. 113 of 2026, decided 18 August 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in