Quashing non-compoundable POCSO/child marriage proceedings permissible post-compromise, DNA exclusion, and no public interest.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The petitioners/accused in Spl.SC.No.222 of 2025 for offence under Sections 363 & 366 IPC, Section 5(i), 5(j)(ii) and 6(1) of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2019 and Sections 9, 10 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, filed this quash petition.

2.The case against the petitioners is that victim aged about 17 years, whose date of birth is 24.12.2005 was living with her parents 4 & 5 petitioners. The victim was studying second year nursing course in SMC Nursing College. During the holidays, she used to help her parents in the field. Near to the field, petitioners 1 to 3 residing. The first petitioner shown interest on the victim girl. On 25.12.2022, when the victim girl was plucking guava fruit in the orchard, at that time, the first petitioner took the victim girl forcibly into his house and committed penetrative sexual assault, and victim became pregnant. Thereafter, on 09.09.2023, the victim gave birth to a female baby. Thereafter, complaint registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 19 witnesses before the Special Court (POSCO Case), Dharmapuri, which was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.222 of 2025.

3.The contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was interested in the victim and the victim was friendly with him, both showered interest, against each other they were friendly but not lovers. The first petitioner and victim were spending time together. The parents of the first petitioner and the victim mistook that it was a serious love affair and forced them for a marriage. It was later registered. When the victim became pregnant, the blame was shifted to the first petitioner and the case registered. Now victim comes forward, realizing her mistake and sworn to an affidavit not willing to proceed the case against the petitioners. Even at the time of alleged occurrence, the victim was just short of attaining majority. Victim is a paramedical student, consciously having a friendly relationship with the first petitioner, knowing the consequences. Now, the issue has been resolved and a compromise entered between the victim and the petitioners. In this regard, they filed a joint compromise memo, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the complaint received from the second respondent/The Rural Welfare Officer, Palacode, and case registered. Thereafter, the victim was examined, her statement recorded and investigation completed listing 19 witnesses and producing documents. Further, submitted that from the forensic DNA report, it is seen first petitioner excluded from the paternity test conducted on the baby. The victim not disclosed the person responsible for her pregnancy. Therefore, it is submitted that no material could be collected to prove the allegation of child marriage and penetrative sexual assault by the first petitioner and abetted for marriage by other petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

7. The petitioners and the victim appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.Maheswari, WHC – 282, AWPS, Palacode.

8. On interaction by this Court, the victim confirmed that she is willing to settle the dispute with the petitioners and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same. Further, DNA Test excludes the first petitioner’s paternity to the baby. For the other overtacts, no witnesses confirms about any marriage abetted by other petitioners and there is no proof for any child marriage. Hence, now the fulcrum of the case vanishes. The victim is a Nursing student, knows about the act and consequences.

9. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case p