The court recognized that mutual consent in adolescent relationships may not constitute an offense under the POCSO Act, suggesting a need for legislative change to address such scenarios.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is a case where apparently a love relationship between a young couple has proceeded to the extent that they have indulged in a physical relationship, as a result of which the girl who is admittedly a minor being about 16 years old or so at the relevant time, became pregnant and has subsequently delivered a child out of the said relationship with the petitioner No. 1 herein. The said relationship took a turn for the worse, inasmuch as, the petitioner No. 1 has initially refused to recognize his relationship with the alleged victim girl and the petitioner No. 2 who is the father of the victim, out of anger at the conduct of the petitioner No. 1, lodged a First Information Report on 21.11.2022 before the Officer-in-Charge, Ummulong Beat House, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. Investigation then commenced on the case being registered as Jowai P.S. Case No. 151 (11) of 2022 under Section 5 (j) (ii)/6 of POCSO Act. The Investigating Officer (I/O) after completion of the investigation, has filed the charge sheet on 13.12.2022. It is the findings of the I/O on all the evidences collected during the investigation that a prima facie case under Section 5 (j) (ii)/6 of POCSO Act is found well established against the petitioner No. 1/accused and the matter was put up before the competent court for commencement of the trial. The case now is at the stage of evidence.

3. In the meantime, it appears that the accused/petitioner No. 1 and the complainant/petitioner No. 2 had a change of heart and that the relationship have come to a point that according to them, good sense have prevailed, with the relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and the minor daughter of the petitioner No. 2 being acknowledged by the families of both parties and also that both the concerned parties have agreed that as and when the time comes, particularly when the minor daughter of the petitioner No. 2 comes of age, they will bind themselves in a legally marital relationship, until then, the petitioner No. 1 has assured that he will take care of the child born out of the relationship aforementioned.

4. In this backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court, inter alia, with a prayer that the proceedings before the court concerned may be brought to a closure as continuance of the same would not serve any useful purpose, considering the fact that parties have come to an agreement, evidenced by the fact that a Deed of Settlement has been executed between them, indicating therein that they have arrived at a mutual understanding, bowing to the wishes of their son and daughter (petitioner No. 1 and the minor daughter of the petitioner No. 2) and also looking into the welfare of the new born child, the family members have thought it fit to allow the relationship to continue. The petitioner No. 2 has accordingly indicated that he is no longer willing to pursue the matter before the court.

5. Ms. A.P. Kharsahnoh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this being the case, this Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be pleased to quash the proceedings before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya in Special (POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2022.

6. In course of these proceedings, a query was made by this Court on the basis of the materials on record, which has indicated that the petitioner No. 1 was already a married man as to whether the same is factual, to this extent, the prosecution was requested to file status report in this regard.

7. Mr. A.H. Kh