IMPORTANT POINT
The court balanced the objectives of the POCSO Act with the consensual nature of the relationship and the maturity of the victim, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that an FIR dated 10.06.2018 was lodged before the Officer-in- Charge, Mawlai Police Station by the respondent No. 4 herein informing the police that her minor daughter aged about 16 years had gone missing since 04.06.2018 and is suspected to be in the company of one Josh Diengdoh of Mawlai Phudmuri, Block-B.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, Mawlai P.S Case No. 47(06) of 2018 under Section 364 was registered and investigation launched. In course of investigation, the accused/petitioner No. 1 was arrested and was subsequently released on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner No. 1 with the opinion that a case under Section 366 A IPC read with section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was found well established against the accused/petitioner No. 1. The case is now pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong being Special POSCO Case No. 40 of 2020.

3. The petitioner No. 1 who is the alleged perpetrator and the petitioner No. 2 who is the alleged victim have jointly filed this petition before this Court, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside and quash the FIR dated 10.06.2018 and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 1 in Special POSCO Case No. 40 of 2020.

4. Mr. Syngkon has further submitted that this is a case where the alleged victim and the accused are in a love relationship and from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C it is evident that there was already an intention on their part to elope and to stay together as husband and wife and as such on 04.06.2018 after being scolded by her mother the petitioner No. 2 called up the petitioner No. 1 and together they went to his relative's place at Bhoi Rymbong and stayed there without informing her relatives. It was only on 13.06.2018 that her mother/respondent No. 4 and other relatives came to fetch her from Bhoi Rymbong.

5. She was, thereafter, taken to the hospital for medical check-up while the petitioner No. 1 was arrested by the police. However, the petitioner No. 2 has reiterated that she is now staying together with the petitioner No. 1 as husband and wife and her physical relationship with him was with her consent.

6. As stated above, the petitioners have now approached this Court with the aforementioned prayer stating that their relationship is that of husband and wife and prosecuting the petitioner No. 1 for having physical or sexual relationship with his wife is not the objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as at the time when the FIR was filed, the petitioner No. 2 is only one day short of her 18th birthday, the birth certificate indicating this fact was also produced by the petitioners before this Court through Annexure-II of this petition.

7. Mr. Syngkon has also submitted that many High Courts, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of cases of this kind has taken a lenient view and for the welfare and dignity of the parties involved has chosen to terminate the criminal proceedings initiated, more often than not, against the male partner. The case of 'Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. By. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Erode' Crl. O.P No. 232 of 2021 at para 11 and 18 of the same have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. Another case, being the case of Shri. Teiborlang Kurkalang & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya (Crl. Petn. No. 62 of 2021), reference to order dated 23.03.2022 was also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petitioners' case.

8. It is prayed that this Court in view of the precedent set may be pleased to allow this petition and to set aside and quash the said FIR dated 10.06.2018 and the consequent proceedings in Special POSCO Case No. 40 of 2020.

9. Mr