Back
Sooki Rymbai Case: Meghalaya High Court Quashes POCSO FIR After Victim's Informed Consent
In a significant ruling that balances the strictures of the with the lived realities of adolescent relationships in Meghalaya, the has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under the Act after his wife—the survivor—gave her to close the case.
A Marriage and Two Children Later
The petition was filed by Sooki Rymbai (the original accused) and his wife (the survivor) seeking quashing of FIR No.17(5) 2020 registered at the , and the consequent chargesheet and trial in Special POCSO Case No.11 of 2021. The couple told the court that they had been in a romantic relationship at the time of the incident and later got married. They now have two sons and live together as a family.
A report from the Secretary of the confirmed that the survivor, now 19, lives happily with her 28-year-old husband and their children. She stated unequivocally that she wanted the case closed and that her consent was voluntary and free from coercion. The complainant—the survivor’s own mother—also supported quashing the proceedings.
The Court's Legal Framework for Quashing POCSO Cases
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere, presiding over the single-judge bench, relied on the court’s earlier decision in Shri Shalenbor Wahlang and anr. v. State of Meghalaya (Crl.Petn. No. 92 of 2023). That judgment had laid down detailed guidelines for when a POCSO case can be quashed under on the basis of consent, even though the POCSO Act is a .
The court emphasised that such discretion must be exercised “ ” and that exists. Key factors include the age of the parties, whether the victim’s consent is informed and voluntary, and whether the accused and victim are married, have a child, or live together as husband and wife in accordance with local customs.
and Matrilineal Realities
The judgment drew attention to the unique societal structure of Meghalaya, where the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes follow a . “Women have more independence than women in many patriarchal communities, including the freedom to select their partners, remarry without shame and take an active role in public places,” the court observed, quoting from the Wahlang precedent.
Against this backdrop, the court found that quashing the case would serve the . “Sending the boy to jail would not serve the , rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child born from the said ,” the judgment noted.
Welfare Beyond Acquittal
While allowing the petition, the court did not stop at quashing the FIR and proceedings. It directed a comprehensive list of 15 government schemes to be extended to the survivor and her two children, including the scheme for POCSO victims, , , the , , and several others.
If compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme is granted, the amount will be kept in a fixed deposit until the survivor turns 25, with quarterly interest payable to her in the interim. The District Child Protection Officer and Secretary of the , have been directed to ensure the benefits reach the family within eight weeks.
Key Observations
- “ under Section 528 BNSS by consent, is permissible even if it is a … However, the said discretion has to be used .”
- “Rendering justice demands not only that the law be applied with precision, but also that it be when the situation/facts of a case, warrant it.”
- “Where the victim and the boy are married or are (and recognised), and have a child/children, sending the boy to jail would not serve the .”
The court listed the matter for compliance on , ensuring that the survivor and her children are not left without the social security the law intends to provide.
