BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Muruganantham and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) No.19734 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. victim's affidavit and compromise (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
(M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.)
The petitioners, who are A2 to A5 in Crime No.67 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 5(1), 6 and 17 of TN Prohibition of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , Section 506(1) of IPC and Section 9,10 and 11 of TN Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 , had filed this quash application.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the husband of vicitm/second respondent, second and third petitioners are mother and mother-in-law of the victim and the fourth petitioner is the mother of A2. The defacto complainant /victim had lodged a complaint stating that when she was studying in Mudukulathur Pallivasal Higher Secondary School, she used to travel in TATA ACE vehicle along with her schoolmates, which was driven by one Balamurugan. Later, the said Balamurugan, on 16.12.2022, called the victim girl to his house and on promise to marry her committed penetrative sexual assault. They continued to their relationship, which was objected by her parents and later, marriage was held between the victim and the first petitioner/A2 on 01.07.2024. The victim was minor when she had relationship on 16.12.2022 as well as 14.12.2023 and hence, case was registered. Now, the victim and the first petitioner/A2 are living as husband and wife and the petitioners 3 to 5, mother, mother-in-law and grand-parent, all agreed to her marriage and living as one family. The victim has attained majority and the victim had filed an affidavit confirming the marriage and her relationship and she and the first petitioner are living as husband an wife. Further submitted that the first petitioner is the only earning member, supporting the entire family and now, they are living happily. In view of the same, now the victim had filed a compromise memo. Hence, seeks quashing of case.
3. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that on the complaint of the victim, case has been registered in Crime No.67 of 2024 and thereafter, on completion of investigation, victim statement recorded and she was produced before the Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 recorded. She confirmed penetrative sexual assault committed by A1 and married with A2. During investigation, statement of witnesses recorded. The victim, A1 and A2 were produced before the Doctor for medical examination. Records collected. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed listing L.W.1 to L.W.26. The first petitioner is the husband of victim, second and third petitioners are mother and mother- in-law of victim and the fourth petitioner is the grandparent of victim. On interaction with the victim, it is confirmed that the victim is married and she is living happily with A2 as husband and wife. The respondent police had confirmed that the first petitioner and the victim are living as husband wife and all the petitioners are living together as one family. Further submitted that in this case, investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed in Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2024 before the Additional Mahila Court (Fast Track), Ramanathapuram.
4. Today, a joint Memo of Compromise filed before this Court signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and their respective counsels. The petitioners and the second respondent present before this Court, identified by Mr.Sendurpandi, SSI of Police, Peraiyur Polie Station, Ramanathapuram District, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court enquired both the parties, satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves on their own voluntarily without any compulsion.
5. The second respondent had stated that she and the first petitioner are living as husband and wife and she continues to live with A2 as wife and her matrimonial life not to be disturbed and hence, she had intended to withdraw the complaint against the petitioners. She has also filed filed an affidavit. The relevant p
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, even for non-compoundable offences, when it serves the ends of justice and prevents oppression.
Compromise between parties in non-compoundable criminal cases can satisfy interests of justice and lead to quashing proceedings when there is minimal chance of conviction.
Ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered in accordance with laws enacted by Legislature.
Marriage between accused and victim can warrant quashing of sexual assault charges to promote justice and family life.
A crime under the POCSO Act may be quashed if the victim and accused marry and live harmoniously, emphasizing the importance of family stability over legal proceedings.
Compromise between parties can lead to quashing of proceedings in serious cases if societal interests align.
A court can quash criminal proceedings when the victim marries the accused, promoting justice and family harmony.
Compromise in non-compoundable offences can lead to quashing proceedings when considering family dynamics and societal interests.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.