Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.PUGALENDHI, J
Thangamari – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6197 of 2024 | Spl.S.C.No.190 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam, Azad, Government Advocate(Crl.side), Mr.Guru.Muruganantham
Court can quash non-compoundable offences if the case is individual in nature and no overriding public interest is harmed, guided by Supreme Court principles.
Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2000 - Section 9 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Non-compoundable offences - Amicable settlement between parties is significant, but must consider public interest and societal harm - Guidelines from Supreme Court on quashing such offences - Proceedings quashed based on victim's age and consent - Joint compromise memo forms basis for decision. (Paras 3, 12)
(B) Court's observation on young individuals in romantic relationships facing prosecution under stringent laws, emphasizing need for legislative review and societal understanding of adolescents' experiences. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, involved in a relationship with a minor, faces charges. Both parties affirm a love marriage and the victim is no longer interested in prosecution. (Paras 6, 9)
Findings of Court:
The compromise between parties does not undermine public interest; thus, quashing proceedings is warranted to alleviate ongoing distress. (Paras 12)
Issues: Whether non-compoundable offences can be quashed when the parties have settled and no public interest is adversely affected. (Paras 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledges the rare circumstances where non-compoundable case proceedings should be quashed if settlements occur and public interests are not harmed. (Paras 20)
Result: Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court must examine public interest in quashing non-compoundable offences. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. victim's age and consent impact prosecution decisions. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. guidelines from supreme court clarify circumstances for quashing proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's order to quash reflects the lack of public interest threat. (Para 5 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.190 of 2022 for the offence under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act , 2000 and Sections 4 (2), 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai. He has filed this application to quash the proceedings pending against him, on the ground that the issue has been amicably settled among themselves.
2.The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the third respondent, who is a minor, had love affair and they have married and thereafter, she got pregnant. Therefore, on the complaint of the Social Welfare Officer, a case in Cr.No.16 of 2022 has been registered and upon completion of investigation, final report has also been filed as against the petitioner.
3.The case has been registered for the offence under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act , 2000 and Sections 4 (2), 5(1), 5(j) (ii), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 , which are non-compoundable offences. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inParbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath [2017 9 SCC 641] and in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another [(2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10], has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C,(528 BNSS) to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine whether the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. It has been repeatedly cautioned that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
4.Though this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at the first instance, a similar issue has been dealt by this Court in Vijayalakshmi and Ors Vs State and Ors reported in (2021) 2 CTC 191 as follows:-
17.This Court is not turning a blind eye to cases where the victim or survivor may, under the effect of trauma that they have undergone, studies on which show that they might tend to reconcile with the same by blaming themselves or convincing themselves that the element of consent was infact present. Nor is this Court scientifically justifying in toto, the genuineness or predicament of the accused in every case where it appears that the accused and victim child have been in a romantic relationship. That will depend on the facts and circumstances of each and every case.
18.In the present case, the 2nd Petitioner who was in a relationship with the 2nd Respondent who is also in his early twenties, has clearly stated that she was the one who insisted that the 2nd Respondent take her away from her home and marry her, due to the pressure exerted by her parents. The 2nd Respondent, who was placed in a very precarious situation decided to concede to the demand of the 2nd Petitioner. Thereafter, they eloped from their respective homes, got married and consummated the marriage. Incidents of this nature keep occurring regularly even now in villages and towns and occasionally in cities. After the parents or family lodge a complaint, the police register FIRs for offences of kidnapping and various offences under the POCSO Act. Several criminal cases booked under the POCSO Act fall under this category. As a consequence of such a FIR being registered, invariably the boy gets arrested and thereafter, his youthful life comes to a gr
