Introduction:

In a nuanced and socially contextual judgment, the Meghalaya High Court in Shri Vicky Kharsati v. State of Meghalaya (Crl. Petn. No. 17/2026) addressed the complex intersection of statutory criminal law and prevailing social realities. The case revolved around a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, particularly Sections 5 and 6, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The factual background of the case reveals a situation not uncommon in certain parts of India, particularly in regions like Meghalaya where social practices and lived realities often diverge from statutory frameworks. At the time of the alleged incident, the victim was 17 years old, while the accused was 21. The FIR was not lodged by the victim or her family but by a medical officer after the minor reported pregnancy during a medical examination.

Subsequently, the parties approached the High Court, contending that their relationship was consensual in nature and had culminated in marriage according to local customs. They further stated that they were living together as husband and wife and had children from the relationship. Importantly, the victim herself supported the petition for quashing, asserting that the relationship was voluntary and that continuation of criminal proceedings would disrupt their family life.

The case thus presented a delicate legal issue: whether criminal proceedings under a strict liability statute like the POCSO Act could be quashed in light of consensual adolescent relationships that had evolved into stable family units. The matter also brought into focus the growing number of similar petitions in Meghalaya, where adolescent relationships often lead to elopement, early marriage, and cohabitation.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere, while adjudicating the matter, acknowledged these ground realities and emphasized the need for courts to approach such cases with sensitivity and pragmatism.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners advanced a compelling case centered on consent, social context, and subsequent developments in their relationship. They argued that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual from the outset and was not the result of coercion, exploitation, or abuse. The petitioners emphasized that their relationship had matured into a marital union recognized by local customs, and that they were now living together as a family with children.

A significant aspect of their argument was the support extended by the victim herself. She not only confirmed the consensual nature of the relationship but also expressed her desire for the criminal proceedings to be quashed. The petitioners contended that continuing the prosecution would cause irreparable harm to the family, particularly to the victim and the children born out of the relationship.

They further argued that the purpose of the POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, and not to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents or young adults where there is no element of coercion or manipulation. In this context, they invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash proceedings in the interest of justice.

The petitioners also highlighted the broader social context in Meghalaya, where adolescent relationships often culminate in marriage or cohabitation. They argued that a rigid application of the law, without regard to these realities, would lead to unjust outcomes and undermine the very objective of the legal system.

On the other hand, the State approached the matter with caution, given the serious nature of offences under the POCSO Act. The prosecution emphasized that the statute is designed to provide stringent protection to minors and operates on the principle that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant. Therefore, any sexual activity involving a person below the age of 18 is deemed to be an offence, irrespective of consent.

The State also raised concerns about the potential misuse of quashing petitions in such cases. It argued that allowing quashing solely on the basis of subsequent marriage or settlement could set a precedent that weakens the deterrent effect of the law and opens the door to coercion being masked as consent.

However, the State did not strongly oppose the petition in light of the specific facts of the case, particularly the victim’s voluntary support and the absence of any allegation of force or exploitation. The focus of the State’s argument remained on ensuring that the Court exercised its discretion with caution and did not dilute the protective framework of the POCSO Act.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Revati Mohite Dere delivered a carefully reasoned judgment that balanced the rigour of statutory law with the realities of human relationships. The Court began by acknowledging the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act and the legislative intent behind its enactment. It reiterated that the Act is a special law designed to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and that its provisions must be applied with due regard to this objective.

At the same time, the Court emphasized that the exercise of its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings is not entirely excluded in cases involving POCSO offences. It observed that such powers must be exercised with caution and on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances.

A key aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its recognition of the social realities prevalent in Meghalaya. The Court noted that there is a high incidence of adolescent consensual relationships in the State, often leading to elopement, early marriage, or cohabitation. These relationships frequently result in the birth of children and give rise to criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act, which are later sought to be quashed by mutual consent.

The Court observed that ignoring these realities would lead to outcomes that are disconnected from the lived experiences of the people. It stressed that the law must be applied in a manner that is both just and contextually relevant.

In the present case, the Court found that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual and had evolved into a stable family unit. The fact that the parties had married according to local customs and were living together with their children weighed heavily in favour of quashing.

The Court also took steps to ensure that the victim’s consent was genuine and not the result of coercion. It directed verification through the Legal Services Committee, which confirmed that the victim’s consent was voluntary. This verification played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

Importantly, the Court held that sending the accused to jail in such circumstances would not serve the cause of justice. Instead, it would cause significant harm to the victim and the children, who would be deprived of familial support. The Court observed that the criminal justice system must aim to achieve substantive justice rather than merely enforce technical compliance with the law.

While exercising its discretion, the Court made it clear that its decision was based on the unique facts of the case and should not be treated as a blanket rule. It reiterated that each case must be examined on its own merits, and that quashing of POCSO proceedings should be an exception rather than the norm.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to injustice in the given circumstances.

This judgment stands as an important example of judicial sensitivity and pragmatism. It highlights the need for courts to balance statutory mandates with social realities and to ensure that the application of law does not lead to unjust consequences. At the same time, it reinforces the principle that such discretion must be exercised with care, so as not to undermine the protective framework of the law.