The High Court of Meghalaya has quashed a pending Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against a 24-year-old man, allowing him and his 19-year-old partner to continue their life together as a family. Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere, presiding over the matter, ruled that continuing criminal proceedings would cause "great injustice" to the couple and their two young children, aged 4 and 1, who are currently being supported by the petitioner. The decision reflects the Court’s growing emphasis on balancing legal mandates with the unique social and tribal structures prevalent in the state.

A Shift Towards Lived Realities The case originated from a 2021 FIR registered at the Nongstoin Police Station under the POCSO Act. The accused and the survivor, who was 16 at the time of the initial relationship, have since established a life together. They have two children and are recognized as a family unit. In reaching the decision to set aside the FIR and the subsequent trial proceedings, the Court took into account extensive reports verifying that the couple's relationship was based on mutual consent and that their daily life is rooted in a stable, domestic environment.

The Chief Justice observed that the administration of law must acknowledge the specific social context of Meghalaya, where matrilineal traditions among the Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia tribes influence property lineage and familial roles. In her ruling, Justice Dere emphasized that courts cannot ignore ground realities, particularly when dealing with adolescent relationships that culminate in elopement or cohabitation. She noted, "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."

The Court relied on a rigorous vetting process to ensure the survivor's interests were protected. The survivor and her mother, who was the original complainant in the case, both provided statements confirming they had no objection to the proceedings being quashed. The Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee was directed to interview the survivor to verify that her consent was informed and not the product of external pressure or coercion. The resulting report confirmed that the young woman was aware of her rights and expressed a clear desire to remain with her partner and children, while also seeking opportunities for vocational training in fields such as tailoring or farming.

Investigating Informed Consent Justice Dere highlighted the importance of judicial discretion when addressing cases involving young couples, particularly when a child is involved. The Court cautioned that while cases under the POCSO Act involve matters of significant social interest, the mechanical enforcement of criminal law in instances where parties are already living as a cohesive family can result in unintended harm. Addressing this balance, the Court stated, "In cases where the court comes to the conclusion, that the consent given by the victim is a genuine and informed consent and that it would be greater injustice to send the boy to jail, instead of letting the parties live together as one family, the Court may consider quashing the case, pending trial."

The ruling also addressed the responsibility of the state to ensure the welfare of the children involved in such scenarios. Acknowledging that the couple had previously not received support under state or federal welfare schemes, the Court issued specific directives to ensure they receive essential benefits. The District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) in West Khasi Hills were instructed to appoint a support person to assist the survivor in navigating the available government schemes, including those under the POCSO Act, the Mission Vatsalya program, and various maternal and child health initiatives.

Mandatory Welfare and Support The Court’s order mandates comprehensive support, covering fifteen distinct government initiatives designed to assist victims of crime and promote child welfare. These include the Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme, the Ayushman Bharat-PM-JAY health insurance, and the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao initiative. Furthermore, the authorities are tasked with facilitating the survivor’s enrollment in a vocational course, ensuring she has the opportunity to achieve economic independence.

The Court underscored that the responsibility of the State Government extends beyond legal enforcement to active rehabilitation. Justice Dere remarked, "We may note, considering the large number of POCSO cases, in particular Romeo–Juliet cases , it is the responsibility of the State Government to create awareness amongst the people, including the children about the provisions of the POCSO Act, its punishment, etc., not only in the cities but also in the interior and remote places, including schools, colleges, etc."

By quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Court has provided the family a pathway to stability, prioritizing the long-term well-being of the two children over the continuation of the trial. The Court directed both the DCPO and the DLSA to file compliance reports detailing the benefits provided to the family. To ensure these directives are executed, the matter has been listed for further review on December 21, 2026, at which point the Court will assess the progress made in integrating the mother and her children into these critical social safety nets. This oversight mechanism ensures that the quashing of the criminal case is not merely an end to legal strife, but a new beginning for the family's socio-economic security.