Shri. Bansheilang Khongsit & Ors. vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 417 Meg

      Serial No. 04
      Regular List

                         HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                               AT SHILLONG

Crl. Petn. No. 23 of 2022
                                                   Date of Decision: 01.08.2022
Shri. Bansheilang Khongsit & Ors.            Vs.    State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
               Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   : Ms. A. Syiem, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)             : Mr. R. Gurung, Addl. Sr. GA

i)       Whether approved for reporting in                 Yes/No
         Law journals etc.:

ii)      Whether approved for publication
         in press:                                         Yes/No


                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

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. 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. 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. 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.

Judge

Meghalaya 01.08.2022 "Tiprilynti-PS"