POCSO Cases Involving Consensual Adolescent Relationships May Be Quashed To Prevent “Manifest Injustice”: Meghalaya High Court
Ananya Tangri
30 March 2026 12:45 PM IST
The Meghalaya High Court has held that while the statutory age of consent remains binding, courts must account for “ground realities” in consensual adolescent relationships, and may quash POCSO proceedings in exceptional cases to prevent injustice.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed:
“What emerges… is that although the statutory age of consent remains binding… the facts of each case, particularly the age proximity, voluntariness of the relationship and the future wellbeing of the individuals… must be taken into consideration so that the object of the law is preserved without doing manifest injustice to the parties.”
The Court was answering a reference on whether proceedings under the POCSO Act can be quashed on the basis of consent under Section 528 BNSS, despite the statute's overriding effect.
At the outset, the Bench reaffirmed that the High Court's inherent powers are of “wide plenitude” and can be exercised “to secure the ends of justice” or “prevent abuse of process,” but only in exceptional cases and guided by Supreme Court precedents. It stressed that there can be no straitjacket formula, and the determination would depend on factors such as age proximity, whether consent is “informed,” and whether the parties are married or have a child.
Significantly, the Court highlighted the structural tension within POCSO's design. It noted that once the age of consent was raised to 18, even consensual relationships between adolescents attract the full rigour of criminal law, as “consent… is immaterial in the eyes of law.” At the same time, minimum sentencing provisions mean courts cannot tailor punishment even where circumstances warrant leniency.
The Bench observed that a large number of cases now arise from consensual adolescent relationships, particularly in the 16–18 age group, and that rigid application of the law risks producing outcomes that are “disproportionately punitive.”
The Court recorded the recurring pattern in such cases, “in a lot many cases arise out of adolescent relationship… girls between 16 to 18 years and boys who are classmates, neighbours or closely acquainted… complaints have often been made due to parental opposition… the victim becomes hostile… and adolescent boys… are required to face the full rigour of the criminal process… making the damage irreversible.”
The Court also noted that prosecution in such cases often disrupts education, employment, and future prospects of young boys, even where they are ultimately acquitted.
Turning specifically to Meghalaya, the Bench emphasised that local socio-cultural realities cannot be ignored. It pointed to the prevalence of adolescent relationships culminating in elopement, cohabitation, or early marriage, often socially recognised, as well as the matrilineal structure of Khasi, Garo and Jaintia communities. It also highlighted limited access to legal awareness and institutional support in rural and tribal areas.
Against this backdrop, the Court cautioned that mechanical enforcement of a uniform age of consent without regard to consent, age proximity, and social context may undermine the very protective purpose of the law.
At the same time, the Bench reiterated that POCSO offences are not merely private disputes but offences against society. Therefore, any exercise of inherent powers must be careful, cautious and circumspect, with safeguards including verification of the relationship and ensuring that the victim's consent is genuine and informed.
Concluding, the Court held that quashing of POCSO proceedings by consent is permissible in appropriate cases, but only where continuation of prosecution would defeat the ends of justice:
“Rendering justice demands… that it be tempered with fairness, compassion and empathy… Where the victim and the boy are married or living together… sending the boy to jail would not serve the cause of justice… the Court may consider quashing the case.”
Case Title: Shri Shalenbor Wahlang & Anr v. State of Meghalaya & Anr
Case No.:Crl. Petn. No. 92 of 2023
Appearance: Ms L. Khiangte and Mr Th. Rakesh for the Petitioners; Mr A. Kumar, Advocate General with Mr R. Gurung, Addl. PP; Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA; Mr S.P. Mahanta, Amicus Curiae with Mr D. Dkhar for the Respondents.