Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B. Pugalendhi, J
P.Harisudan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.OP(MD)No.11048 of 2025 | Crl.MP(MD) No.8293 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Mr.A.Kalidoss
The court can quash non-compoundable offences if they are personal in nature and quashing serves justice, alleviating mental stress for involved parties.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(1), 5(n), 5(i)(ii), 6 - Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Quashing of proceedings - Accused and victim married with a child - Compromise reached - Supreme Court guidelines evaluated concerning non-compoundable offences with public interest considerations - Quashing held valid in this individual case to prevent mental agony due to ongoing proceedings (Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14).
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Court's jurisdiction to quash non-compoundable offences - Considerations involve nature of the crimes, public interest, and voluntary nature of compromises (Paras 3, 20).
Facts of the case:
Petitioner is accused of crimes under POCSO and Child Marriage Act; issues arose from a relationship with a minor resulting in marriage and a child's birth.
Findings of Court:
Proceedings quashed to prevent further agony for the parties involved, given the nature of their relationship being largely personal.
Issues: Whether the Court can quash non-compoundable offences in individual cases of this nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the crimes were predominantly individual and personal, quashing would serve justice and alleviate mental distress.
Result: Original petition allowed, and proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing due to amicable settlement. (Para 2) |
| 2. court outlines test for quashing non-compoundable offences. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court verifies parties' willingness and relationship status. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. court finds quashing warranted to avoid mental anguish. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.258 of 2023 for the offence under Section 5 (l), 5(n), 5(i)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act, Dindigul. 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.Case of the prosecution: The petitioner is the uncle of the victim.
It appers that the victim was brought by the accused's family in view of the dispute between the victim and her parents. Thereafter, third respondent/victim, who is a minor, had love affair with the petitioner and they have married and thereafter, she got pregnant and delivered a child. Therefore, on the complaint of the Rural Health Officer, a case in Cr.No.3 of 2022 has been registered and upon completion of investigation, final report has also been filed by the first respondent Police as against the petitioner.
3.The case has been registered for the offence under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and Sections 5 (1), 5(n), 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, in Parbathbhai 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 482 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, invaria
