Introduction:

The Meghalaya High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), against a man who was living with the survivor as husband and wife and had a child with her. Taking into account the survivor’s present status as an adult, her express no-objection to the continuation of the proceedings, and reports obtained from the police and the High Court Legal Services Committee, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to allowing the petition in the particular circumstances of the case.

Justice W. Diengdoh passed the order on October 8, 2026, in a petition filed by Skhemborlang Syiemlieh seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Lumdiengjri Police Station on June 10, 2025. The FIR invoked Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and its punishment. The petitioner also sought termination of the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

The case involved circumstances in which the petitioner and the survivor were stated to be living together as husband and wife and had a daughter who was approximately eight to nine months old when the matter came before the Court. The original complaint had been lodged by the survivor’s mother. However, during the proceedings before the High Court, the survivor, who had by then attained the age of majority, expressed no objection to the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings being quashed.

The petition raised a sensitive question concerning the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in a prosecution under the POCSO Act. The statute was enacted to protect children from sexual offences and provides a special legal framework for dealing with allegations involving persons below the age of 18. Ordinarily, the fact that the parties have subsequently entered into a relationship, started living together or reached a settlement cannot, by itself, erase an alleged offence under the legislation. The protective purpose of the POCSO Act extends beyond the private wishes of the individuals concerned.

At the same time, the High Court was required to consider the particular circumstances placed before it, including the survivor’s present age, her own position regarding the prosecution and whether her decision was informed and voluntary. Since the survivor had been a minor when the FIR was registered, the Court did not rely merely on the position communicated by her family. It sought independent verification before deciding whether the proceedings should continue.

For this purpose, the Court called for a report from the Officer-in-Charge of Lumdiengjri Police Station and another report from the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee. These reports were intended to assist the Court in understanding the circumstances of the relationship and determining whether the survivor’s no-objection reflected her informed choice.

After considering the reports and the survivor’s position, the Court found that the circumstances justified quashing the proceedings. Justice Diengdoh also directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the survivor and her daughter received the benefits available under applicable government welfare schemes. The authorities were further directed to submit a compliance report to the Court.

The decision is significant not because it creates a general rule permitting POCSO cases to be settled between parties, but because it demonstrates the importance of examining the specific circumstances of a case before exercising inherent jurisdiction. The Court considered the survivor’s attainment of majority, the verification reports and her informed no-objection before granting relief. It also ensured that the decision would be accompanied by directions aimed at protecting the welfare of the survivor and her young daughter.

Arguments of the Parties:

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Skhemborlang Syiemlieh, approached the Meghalaya High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him on June 10, 2025, at Lumdiengjri Police Station, along with all consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

The petitioner’s case was based substantially on the circumstances that had developed after the registration of the FIR. He submitted that he and the survivor were living together as husband and wife and that they had a daughter who was approximately eight to nine months old. According to the petitioner, the parties were continuing their life together as a family, and the criminal proceedings were no longer consistent with the survivor’s present wishes.

The petitioner also relied on the position taken by the survivor’s mother, who had originally lodged the complaint. The mother expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising from it. This development was placed before the High Court as a relevant circumstance supporting the request for relief.

However, the question before the Court was not simply whether the complainant’s family had agreed to the termination of the prosecution. Since the case involved allegations under the POCSO Act, the survivor’s own position was particularly important. The petitioner therefore sought relief in circumstances where the survivor had attained majority and was stated to have no objection to the proceedings being quashed.

The petition effectively requested the High Court to consider the changed circumstances, the existing relationship between the parties, the birth of their child and the survivor’s present wishes while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The relief sought was not limited to quashing the FIR at the police station; it also extended to the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

The Court, however, considered it necessary to verify the relevant circumstances independently before deciding the petition. It therefore sought reports from the police and the High Court Legal Services Committee rather than treating the petitioner’s assertions or the mother’s no-objection as sufficient by themselves.

Survivor’s Position

The survivor’s position became a central consideration in the proceedings. The FIR had originally been registered when the matter involved allegations concerning a person protected under the POCSO Act. By the time the High Court considered the quashing petition, however, the survivor had attained the age of majority and was above 18 years.

The survivor expressed no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. Her position was relevant because the Court was examining whether the circumstances justified exercising its inherent jurisdiction in a case where the person directly concerned with the allegations had now become an adult.

Importantly, the Court did not proceed solely on the basis of a statement that the survivor had no objection. It sought a report from the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee to ascertain the circumstances and whether her consent was informed. This reflected the need to ensure that her position was considered independently, rather than simply accepting the wishes of the petitioner or the family members.

The police verification report and the report of the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee were ultimately placed before the Court. The judgment records that these reports, together with the survivor’s no-objection, supported the decision to allow the petition.

Position of the Respondents and Verification by the Authorities

The case summary does not record detailed separate submissions by the State or the other respondents opposing the petition. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute specific arguments to them that are not reflected in the available account of the proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Court’s decision to call for independent reports demonstrates that it did not treat the request as an ordinary private settlement. The police were required to verify the relevant circumstances, while the High Court Legal Services Committee was asked to provide a report addressing the survivor’s position and whether her consent was informed.

The mother’s no-objection and the survivor’s own position were therefore considered alongside the independent reports. This was particularly important because the proceedings involved an offence under the POCSO Act, a statute enacted to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

The Court’s approach ensured that the request for quashing was examined on the basis of more than the petitioner’s claim that the parties were living together. The survivor’s present age, her own expressed wishes and the reports obtained by the Court formed part of the material considered before relief was granted.

Court’s Judgment:

The Meghalaya High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered against Skhemborlang Syiemlieh under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

Justice W. Diengdoh considered the particular circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner and the survivor were living together as husband and wife and had a young daughter. The Court also took note of the survivor’s present age and her decision not to object to the termination of the criminal proceedings.

A significant aspect of the judgment was that the survivor had attained majority by the time the High Court considered the petition. The Court specifically noted that she was now above 18 years of age. This was relevant to the assessment of her present position and her ability to express her own wishes regarding the continuation of the proceedings.

However, the Court’s reasoning was not confined to the fact that the survivor had become an adult. It also considered the reports obtained during the proceedings. The police verification report and the report of the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee provided additional material for assessing the circumstances and the survivor’s position.

Independent Verification of the Survivor’s Consent

The decision to obtain independent reports was an important feature of the proceedings. In cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act, the Court cannot treat a compromise or a family’s willingness to withdraw a complaint as automatically sufficient to terminate criminal proceedings.

The POCSO Act is a protective statute intended to safeguard children from sexual offences. Its operation is not ordinarily dependent on whether the complainant or the victim’s family later wishes to continue with the prosecution. The seriousness of the allegations and the statutory purpose must be considered independently.

In the present matter, the Court sought to understand whether the survivor’s no-objection was genuinely her own informed position. It therefore called for a report from the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee. The purpose was to ascertain the circumstances and whether the survivor’s consent was informed.

The police verification report was also considered. Together, these reports assisted the Court in assessing the factual background rather than deciding the petition solely on the basis of the relationship asserted by the petitioner.

The importance of this step lies in the distinction between a settlement communicated by family members and the independent wishes of the person directly concerned. The survivor’s mother had originally lodged the complaint and later expressed no objection to quashing. However, the Court also considered the survivor’s own position after she had attained majority.

This approach was particularly relevant because a person’s decision in a sensitive criminal matter must not simply be presumed from the wishes of relatives or from the existence of a relationship with the accused. The Court’s decision to seek verification reflected the need to understand the survivor’s circumstances and ensure that her no-objection was informed.

After considering the reports and the survivor’s position, the Court found no impediment to allowing the petition.

Consideration of the POCSO Act and the Circumstances of the Case

The FIR invoked Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act. These provisions concern aggravated penetrative sexual assault and prescribe punishment for the offence. The allegations therefore fell within a statutory framework designed to provide heightened protection to children.

The Court’s decision must be understood in the context of its consideration of the particular facts and reports before it. The judgment did not establish that every POCSO prosecution can be terminated whenever the survivor later enters into a relationship with the accused, has a child or expresses no objection to the proceedings being withdrawn.

The protective purpose of the legislation remains important. A subsequent relationship or the birth of a child does not, on its own, determine whether an offence under the POCSO Act was committed. Nor does a later settlement automatically extinguish criminal liability. The High Court’s decision rested on the combined circumstances considered in this particular matter, including the survivor’s attainment of majority, her informed no-objection and the reports obtained by the Court.

Justice Diengdoh referred to observations made in an earlier judgment while considering the present petition. However, the available case summary does not identify that earlier decision or reproduce its legal principles in detail. The reasoning can therefore be stated on the basis of the observations expressly recorded in the present order, without attributing additional propositions to an unidentified precedent.

The Court observed:

“Having regard to the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, the report of the Officer-in-charge of the Lumdiengjri Police Station, the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee and the no objection given by the respondent No. 3, there is no impediment in allowing the petition. […] the respondent No. 3 is now a major, above 18 years of age.”

This observation captures the factors that persuaded the Court to grant relief. It did not rely on one circumstance in isolation. Instead, it considered the earlier judicial observations, the police report, the Legal Services Committee report and the survivor’s own no-objection. Her present status as an adult was expressly noted as part of that assessment.

The decision also illustrates the role of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in preventing the continuation of proceedings where the Court, after examining the relevant circumstances, finds that intervention is justified. Such jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously, particularly in prosecutions under special protective statutes. The Court must be satisfied that the facts of the individual case warrant relief and that the decision does not rest merely on a private arrangement between the parties.

In the present case, the verification process enabled the Court to consider the survivor’s present circumstances and wishes with greater clarity. Having regard to the material placed before it, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings.

Welfare Directions for the Survivor and Her Daughter

Apart from quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Court issued directions intended to secure the welfare of the survivor and her young daughter. It directed the concerned authorities to ensure that both receive the benefits available under applicable government welfare schemes.

The direction is an important part of the order because the Court did not confine its attention to the immediate question of whether the criminal proceedings should continue. It also considered the need to ensure that the survivor and her child could access the assistance and support available under government programmes.

The daughter was approximately eight to nine months old when the matter was brought before the Court. In view of the family circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to require the authorities to take steps to ensure that the survivor and the child were not deprived of applicable welfare benefits.

The direction does not identify a particular scheme or prescribe a specific monetary benefit in the available case summary. Rather, it requires the concerned authorities to ensure that the survivor and her daughter receive the benefits for which they are eligible under the applicable government welfare schemes.

The Court also directed the authorities to submit a compliance report. This requirement is significant because it places an obligation on the concerned officials to report back to the Court on the steps taken to implement the welfare directions. The order therefore goes beyond making a general observation about the need for assistance and requires the authorities to demonstrate compliance.

This aspect of the decision reflects a broader concern with the practical welfare of the individuals affected by the proceedings. Once the Court had considered the survivor’s present circumstances and decided to quash the prosecution, it also sought to ensure that the survivor and her child could access the support available to them under government programmes.

Final Outcome

After considering the police verification report, the report of the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee and the no-objection expressed by the survivor, the Meghalaya High Court found that the petition deserved to be allowed.

The Court quashed the FIR registered on June 10, 2025, at Lumdiengjri Police Station under Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It also quashed the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong.

In addition, the Court directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the survivor and her daughter receive the benefits available under applicable government welfare schemes and to submit a compliance report regarding implementation of the directions.

The judgment is significant for its fact-specific approach to a request for quashing proceedings under the POCSO Act. It demonstrates that the Court may examine the survivor’s present circumstances and informed wishes, but that such an assessment must be supported by appropriate verification rather than resting merely on a private compromise or the position taken by family members.

The ruling should not be read as weakening the statutory protection afforded to children under the POCSO Act. The legislation continues to serve an important protective purpose, and the mere existence of a subsequent relationship, a child born to the parties or a settlement does not automatically justify quashing a prosecution. The decision turned on the cumulative circumstances placed before the Court and the independent reports it had specifically called for.

Ultimately, the Meghalaya High Court granted relief after considering the survivor’s attainment of majority, her informed no-objection and the verification material. At the same time, its welfare directions ensured that the survivor and her daughter remained within the focus of the Court’s order. By requiring the authorities to facilitate access to applicable government benefits and report compliance, the Court addressed an important aspect of the family’s circumstances beyond the immediate criminal proceedings.