Meghalaya High Court permits quashing of POCSO cases in ‘Romeo-Juliet’ relationships

“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.,” the court said March 12.

The court held that there is no legal bar on quashing POCSO proceedings under the high court’s inherent jurisdiction, even though the statute is a special law. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Manifest injustice’ as guiding principle

• The rigid application of POCSO provisions in cases of consensual adolescent relationships can lead to serious injustice.
• May criminalise genuine romantic relationships.
• Can destroy the future of young individuals.
• It may also adversely affect children born from such unions, said the court.
• The facts of each case, particularly the age proximity, voluntariness of the relationship and the future well-being of the individuals (victim and child born, if any), etc., must be taken into consideration so that the object of the law is preserved without doing manifest injustice to the parties.

Issue

• The ruling came on a reference made to the division bench after a single judge expressed disagreement with an earlier order that had allowed quashing of a POCSO case based on consent.
• The core issue before the court was whether such cases, despite being governed by a special statute, could be quashed under the high court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC).

Relationship, pregnancy, family acceptance

• The case involved a 22-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl, against whom an FIR was registered on May 3, 2019, alleging offences under the POCSO Act after the girl became pregnant.
• However, both parties approached the high court jointly, stating that they were in a consensual relationship.

• They had been living together since 2018.
• They had a child together.
• Their relationship had been accepted by their families.
• Significantly, both the girl (victim) and her grandmother (complainant) filed affidavits supporting quashing of the proceedings.

No absolute bar on quashing POCSO cases

• The court held that there is no legal bar on quashing POCSO proceedings under the high court’s inherent jurisdiction, even though the statute is a special law.
• The inherent power is of wide plenitude… to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, the bench said while relying on settled Supreme Court principles.
• It cautioned that such powers must be exercised sparingly, with due care and in exceptional cases.

Balancing law, lived realities

• While reiterating that consent of a minor is legally immaterial, the court acknowledged a surge in cases involving teenagers aged 16-18 years engaging in consensual relationships.
• Many FIRs arise due to parental or societal opposition.
• Victims often later support the accused.
• Prosecution can lead to irreversible social and economic harm.
• The bench stressed that the application of POCSO must not become “disproportionately punitive” in such contexts.

Unique socio-cultural factors in Meghalaya

• Highlighting the distinct social fabric of Meghalaya, the court noted the prevalence of cohabitation-based unions.
• Recognition of such relationships by communities.
• The matrilineal system, where women enjoy greater autonomy.
• These factors, it said, are crucial in assessing whether continuation of prosecution would serve justice.

Safeguards before quashing

• To prevent misuse, the court laid down key safeguards, including verification that the victim’s consent is genuine and informed.
• Filing of a no-objection affidavit.
• Independent assessment by legal services authorities.
• Consideration of the welfare of the victim and child.

• Where the victim and the boy are married or are living together as husband and wife (and recognised), and have a child/children, the court said, sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice, rather it would cause great injustice to the victim and the child born from the said consensual relationship, as ultimately, the aim of the law is to do justice.

Call for awareness

• The bench also urged the state to undertake wider awareness campaigns about POCSO laws, especially in rural and remote areas, to prevent adolescents from unknowingly falling foul of the law.

Justice with empathy

• A case under POCSO Act, is not a case against an individual, but is an offence against society as a whole; however, the administration or enforcement of the law cannot be divorced from lived realities.
• 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.

• Thus, it is necessary to maintain a fine balance between the competing interests of justice, deterrence and rehabilitation.

The matter was sent to the appropriate bench for a decision on the merits, but the ruling sets a crucial precedent in navigating the delicate intersection between child protection laws and adolescent autonomy.