In matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings may be quashed if the parties amicably resolve their issues, particularly when the allegations lack sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

The petitioner/accused in Spl.S.C.No.188 of 2024 facing trial for the offence under Sections 3(d), 4, 5(n), 6, 16, 17 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 filed this quash petition.

2.The case projected against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant/second respondent got married during the year 2020 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a girl child aged about three years. During November 2022, the defacto complainant/husband left to Dubai for his job and the petitioner along with her daughter was residing with her parents at Eral. During December 2023, the defacto complainant found the petitioner’s phone to be in online for a long and he got suspicion. On 23.02.2024, the defacto complainant came to India, went to his native at Kayalpattinam and when he called the petitioner to join him, she refused. Hence, on 29.02.2024 the defacto complainant went to Eral, at that time, he found his wife going out constantly and talking in her mobile [Redmi mobile with Phone No.9080528042]. Thereafter, the defacto complainant installed File Recovery App in her mobile and downloaded the erased files, wherein he found nude photographs of his daughter and the petitioner making some sexual assault on the child. When the defacto complainant enquired, the petitioner admitted that she had relationship with one Udhayakumar of Siruthondanallur Village for the past three years and she used to click photos and send it to the said Udhayakumar’s mobile [Oppo moble with No.8682828258] and hence, he lodged a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent police registered a case, enquired the witnesses, arrested the accused and sent her mobile to the forensic examination. The forensic report confirms the photographs of the child and the petitioner’s sexual assault on the baby. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed lisiting L.W.1 to L.W.22, documents and material objects.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had only taken the photographs of her daughter in normal course and not with any sexual intent. There is a matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the defacto complainant with regard to the place of residence. The defacto complainant insisted the petitioner to reside with his parents at Kayalpattinam but the petitioner was insisting that she will reside with her parents at Eral. This matrimonial discord has been amplified and the photographs were projected against the petitioner as though she had sent the photographs to the second accused Udhayakumar with sexual intent. He would submit that the said Udhayakumar is known to the petitioner when she was attending Tailoring class prior to her marriage and this was projected as though the petitioner continued her relationship with him even after the marriage and a false case has been projected. He would further submit that the forensic expert report confirms that no obscene photographs were shared with the said Udhayakumar. The defacto complaint who was in Dubai was fed with false information which lead to the registration of the case. He further submitted that after coming back to India, in a fit of rage complaint was lodged, later the petitioner explained the sequence of events, the defacto complainant realised the same, found the complaint was lodged in a knee jerk reaction, thereafter reconciled with the petitioner and now they are living happily as husband and wife. The petitioner is now pregnant for the second time which confirms forgiveness and close relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the defacto complainant now came forward to file a petition to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner and the said Udhayakumar.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that it is the defacto complainant who lodged the complai