O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner, had kidnapped the defacto complainant, who is aged about 17 years and the petitioner married her.

3. The petitioner filed an affidavit before this Court to the effect that the petitioner and the second respondent/victim girl are relatives and they got married and are living jointly and the family members of the second respondent/victim girl has also accepted them and hence, submitted that the proceedings against him may be quashed.

4. Ms.N.Prema, Head Constable of Rasipuram AWPS was present before this Court and she informed this Court that the second respondent had approached her and informed her that since the defacto complainant and the petitioner got married and living together happily, she do not want to proceed further with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The Defacto Complainant/victim girl and her father were also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court examined the victim girl and she stated that there was a love affair between herself and the petitioner and that she is not willing to undergo this agony any further and wanted the criminal proceedings to be quashed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

7. In this regard it is relevant to refer the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Sabari v. Inspector of Police reported in 2019 (3) MLJ Crl 110, wherein the learned single Judge had discussed in detail about the cases in which persons of the age group of 16 to 18 years are involved in love affairs and how in some cases ultimately end up in a criminal case booked for an offence under the POSCO Act. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted here under for proper appreciation: “ 21.When this case was taken up for hearing, this Court became concerned about the growing incidence of offences under the POCSO Act on one side and also the Rigorous Imprisonment envisaged in the Act. Sometimes it happens that such offences are slapped against teenagers, who fall victim of the application of the POCSO Act at an young age without understanding the implication of the severity of the enactment.

26.In addition to the above, this Court is of the view that 'warning' of attraction of POCSO Act must be displayed before screening of any film, which have teenage characters suggesting relationship between boy and girl.

27.Apart from the above, this Court is of the view that as per the 3rd respondent's report, majority of cases are due to relationship between adolescent boys and girls. Though under Section 2(d) of the Act, 'Child' is defined as a person below the age of 18 years and in case of any love affair between a girl and a boy, where the girl happened to be 16 or 17 years old, either in the school final or entering the college, the relationship invariably assumes the penal character by subjecting the boy to the rigorous of POCSO Act. Once the age of the girl is established in such relationship as below 18 years, the boy involved in the relationship is sure to be sentenced 7 years or 10 years as minimum imprisonment, as the case may be.

28.When the girl below 18 years is involved in a relationship with the teen age boy or little over the teen age, it is always a question mark as to how such relationship could be defined, though such relationship would be the result of