Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 203 (MEG)

Bansheilang Khongsit v. State of Meghalaya

2022-08-01

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The three petitioners herein have jointly filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC with prayer to quash the FIR dated 16.04.2021 upon which Pynursla P.S. Case No. 26 (4) of 2021 under Section 5(j) (ii) (q)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and the subsequent formal registration of Special (POCSO) Case No. 118 of 2021 now pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong. 2. This is a case where a quintessential love story between a young couple, albeit one of whom is about 17 years and another of about 22 years has run foul of the provisions of the law under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act inasmuch as an intimate relationship between the alleged survivor and the petitioner No. 1 herein which has culminated in their physical union and the consequence of a pregnancy was sought to be cut short by the authorities concerned who, on the survivor being brought to the Pynursla CHC and on being confirmed to be pregnant, the mother of the said survivor, who is the petitioner No. 2 herein was made to file an FIR in this regard. Hence, the registration of the case as aforementioned. 3. This is also a unique case where parties who are expected to be on both sides of the spectrum have jointly come together before this Court to seek relief from what it is expected to be a proceeding under due process of law which would eventually affect the petitioner No. 1 who has been arrayed as an accused in the said proceedings. 4. Heard Ms. A. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the background of the case emanates from a love relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and the survivor, who at the relevant period is admittedly about 17 years of age and as a result of such relationship, one day having complaint of weakness, being the mother of the survivor, she took her for medical examination before the CHC at Pynursla where she was confirmed to be pregnant. On the matter being reported to the police, in accordance with the provisions of the POCSO Act, the police prevailed over the mother of the survivor to lodge an FIR in this regard. On the matter being reported to the police, in accordance with the provisions of the POCSO Act, the police prevailed over the mother of the survivor to lodge an FIR in this regard. Accordingly, on a criminal case being registered, investigation was launched and subsequently the chargesheet was filed apparently, finding that a prima facie case is well established under Section 5(j) (ii) (q)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused/petitioner No. 1 was made to stand trial before the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is at this stage before consideration of charge that the petitioners herein have approached this Court with the prayer aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the admitted fact is that the petitioner No. 1 and the survivor on their relationship being known to the family members, including the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 herein who are the mother and father respectively of the survivor, were allowed to cohabit together as husband and wife. Since then, the petitioner No. 1 has looked after and maintained the survivor, fulfilling his duty as a husband. 7. It is reiterated that the parties concerned are not conversant with the provisions of law and therefore, being ignorant of the same, have never thought that their union as husband and wife and the expectation of an issue would be disrupted by the activation of the said law. This line of reasoning is also evident in the statement of the petitioner No. 2 as the informant and the petitioner No. 3 as well as the survivor recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC wherein they have clearly stated that the petitioner No. 1 and the survivor are staying together as husband and wife and their relationship has the blessings of the family members. In fact, the survivor in her statement has also clearly indicated that the petitioner No. 1 is her husband and he is maintaining her and in case he is arrested she and her child would die of hunger. It is a common refrain by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 that they do not want the case against the petitioner No. 1 to continue. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that this Court in an almost identical and similarly situated case being the case of Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. It is a common refrain by the petitioners No. 2 and 3 that they do not want the case against the petitioner No. 1 to continue. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that this Court in an almost identical and similarly situated case being the case of Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. in Crl. Petn. No. 63 of 2021 has quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Section 5(j) (ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. 9. It is prayed that this petition may be allowed and the related FIR dated 16.04.2021 and the chargesheet thereto may be set aside and quashed. 10. Mr. R. Gurung, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the State respondent has submitted that this Court in a recent case which facts and circumstances are similar to the case in hand, has allowed the prayer of the petitioner therein and as such, not much opposition is made as far as the prayer of the petitioners herein is concerned. 11. As has been submitted by the learned Addl. Sr. GA, this Court in the case of Olius Mawiong v. State of Meghalaya in Crl. Petn. No. 22 of 2022 which is of a similar nature involving a relationship between a girl of about 17 years old and a youth of about 21 years old who have cohabited and lived together as husband and wife and on the said minor girl being confirmed pregnant at the Pynursla CHC, the mother of the said minor was made to file the FIR and eventually, on a case under the POCSO Act being registered at the same being taken cognizance by the Special Court (POCSO) Shillong, the petitioners therein have approached this Court with an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings involved. This Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 has allowed the petition. 12. It is seen that the factual aspect of the Olius Mawiong case and this case are almost identical and the issues involved are also identical. This being the case, this Court on consideration of all aspects of the matter, having found it fit to allow the petition in Crl. Petn. No. 22 of 2022, under similar facts and circumstances applying the ratio as laid down in the case of Olius Mawiong, this petition is accordingly found to have merits and the same can be considered. 13. Petn. No. 22 of 2022, under similar facts and circumstances applying the ratio as laid down in the case of Olius Mawiong, this petition is accordingly found to have merits and the same can be considered. 13. In the light of the above observation, this petition is hereby allowed. The FIR dated 16.04.2021 in Pynursla P.S. Case No. 26(4) of 2021 and the related case No. 118 of 2021 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed. 14. Petition disposed of. No costs.