What happens when love between two young people ends up inside a courtroom? Can the law make space for human realities? In a significant ruling, the Meghalaya High Court has said that in exceptional situations, criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act may be quashed — especially in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew while hearing a petition filed by Shalenbor Wahlang and a young woman, seeking to quash an FIR registered at Diengpasoh Police Station in 2019.
But what exactly happened in this case?
According to records, the complaint was filed by the girl’s grandmother alleging that the accused, who was 22 years old at the time, had sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl, which later resulted in pregnancy.
The police filed a charge sheet and the case was pending before the Special POCSO Court in Shillong.
However, years later, both the accused and the girl approached the High Court together.
They told the court that their relationship was consensual, that they had been living together since 2018 as husband and wife, and that they now have a child together, with their families accepting the relationship.
This raised a complex legal question:
Can a POCSO case be quashed even when the law clearly states that a minor’s consent has no legal value?
Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, High Courts have inherent powers to prevent misuse of legal processes.
The court acknowledged that the POCSO Act overrides other laws and treats sexual activity with a minor as an offence regardless of consent.
But the Bench also emphasized that courts must sometimes look beyond rigid legal provisions to ensure justice is served.
So what factors did the court consider?
The judges examined the ages of the couple, the nature of the relationship, the birth of a child, and the fact that the couple had already formed a family unit.
The court also referred to similar cases often described as “Romeo and Juliet cases” — where consensual relationships between young couples end up being prosecuted under strict child protection laws.
During the hearing, Advocate General A. Kumar argued that while POCSO offences are serious, courts must also consider social realities, particularly in places like Meghalaya where cohabitation-based marriages are recognized in some communities.
The Bench observed that a growing number of cases involve adolescents between 16 and 18 years, where romantic relationships fall within the legal framework of POCSO due to the statutory age of consent being 18.
In its final observation, the Meghalaya High Court made it clear:
Quashing of POCSO cases is not automatic.
But in rare and exceptional circumstances, courts may intervene if continuing the prosecution would defeat the ends of justice.
So the larger question remains:
How should the law balance child protection with real-life relationships between young people?
And where should the line between protection and prosecution be drawn?
