When Love Meets Law: Meghalaya HC Charts Path to Quash POCSO Cases in Teen Romances

In a nuanced ruling that bridges strict legal mandates with societal realities, the Meghalaya High Court has held that proceedings under the POCSO Act can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS in exceptional consensual adolescent relationships. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew answered a reference from a Single Judge, emphasizing compassion where rigid enforcement would wreck families. The case, Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr v. State of Meghalaya & Anr (Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023), spotlights the tension between child protection laws and "Romeo-Juliet" romances prevalent in the state.

From Elopement to Courtroom: The Couple's Journey

Petitioner No. 1, Shalenbor Wahlang (then 22), and Petitioner No. 2 (then 16, the victim), entered a consensual relationship around 2018, leading to cohabitation as husband and wife. They now share a seven-year-old child, with family acceptance. Trouble brewed when the victim's grandmother lodged an FIR on May 3, 2019, at Diengpasoh Police Station, alleging sexual assault under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act. A charge-sheet followed (Special POCSO Case No. 103 of 2019), but the couple sought quashing, backed by affidavits from the victim and complainant consenting to drop proceedings.

A Single Judge disagreed with a prior coordinate Bench's quashing in a similar case ( Shri Skhemborlang Suting v. State , 2022), referring it due to POCSO's overriding effect and lack of marriage proof under custom.

Petitions of Love vs. State's Caution

Petitioners' counsel, Ms. L. Khiangte and Mr. Th. Rakesh, argued no legal bar exists under Section 528 BNSS (formerly 482 CrPC) to quash even POCSO FIRs. They highlighted the couple's stable family life, the breadwinner's peril, and potential injustice to the child if proceedings continued.

The Advocate General, Mr. A. Kumar, conceded no absolute bar but urged caution for "heinous" crimes. He acknowledged Meghalaya's recognition of cohabitation marriages and romantic teen relationships often yielding families, yet stressed exceptional exercise only.

Amicus Curiae Mr. S.P. Mahanta advocated balancing equities for 16-18-year-olds, factoring rural realities, lack of awareness, and "informed consent," even if legally immaterial.

Navigating Precedents: From Gian Singh to Adolescent Privacy

The Bench delved into Supreme Court landmarks like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), distinguishing inherent powers from compounding, exercisable for justice or to curb abuse, but sparing heinous offences. Narinder Singh (2014) and Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) reinforced sparing use, eyeing offence gravity, conviction remoteness, and settlement timing.

Recent SC observations in State of UP v. Anurudh (2026) flagged POCSO misuse in teen loves, suggesting a "Romeo-Juliet clause." In K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) and In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), the SC invoked Article 142 for mercy post-conviction where couples married and parented, prioritizing rehabilitation over incarceration.

The Court noted global consent ages (14-16 in many nations) versus India's 18, and Meghalaya's matrilineal customs among Khasi, Garo, Jaintia tribes—where women hold property and choose partners—fostering early unions socially validated, per media reports on the verdict.

Voices from the Bench: Pivotal Quotes

"Whether a case under the POCSO Act... can be quashed with the consent of the accused and the victim, under Section 528 of BNSS, having regard to the fact, that the POCSO Act has an overriding effect on any other law..."

"Although the statutory age of consent remains binding... the facts of each case, particularly, the age proximity, voluntariness of the relationship and the future wellbeing of the individuals... must be taken into consideration so that the object of the law is preserved without doing manifest injustice..."

"Where the victim and the boy are married or are living together as husband and wife... sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child..."

"Rendering justice demands... that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy when the situation/facts of a case, warrant it."

A Balanced Verdict: Quashing with Safeguards

Answering affirmatively, the Court held quashing permissible in exceptional cases—no straitjacket formula—factoring age proximity, genuine "informed consent" (verified via MLSA/DLSA affidavit), marriage/cohabitation proof (police report), and victim/child welfare schemes. It urged state awareness drives on POCSO.

The petition returns to the Single Bench for merits. This ruling, echoing national concerns on "disproportionately punitive" outcomes in teen consensuals, offers Meghalaya courts a compassionate toolkit, preventing family fractures while upholding child protection—potentially influencing similar "elopement" cases amid calls for legislative tweaks.