IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.32093 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.22253 of 2025 N.Maniyarasu … Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police Kunnam, Perambalur

2. Rajalakshmi … Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kripakaran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl S.C.No.25 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and 9 of the Child Marriage Act on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, on the ground of compromise.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim following which there was betrothal. The complaint has been given as if the accused had performed the child marriage. Now, the petitioner had married the victim girl and their marriage has been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Veppur on 17.11.2025. Out of their wedlock, they have a child, and they are now living as husband and wife.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-Police submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

4. Mr.S.Mohamed Jiyavuden, SSI, Kunnam Police Station, was present before this Court at the time of hearing and he has identified the parties.

5. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences pending against the petitioner.

6. The Supreme Court, in a very recent judgment in K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 1272], in which the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, by commencing the judgment with the quote “The final cause of law is the welfare of society” of Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and finding that the crime was not the result of lust but love, quashed the proceedings against the appellant invoking Section 142 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:

“5. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the proceedings should be quashed in the present case, considering that the appellant is convicted of a heinous offence. 6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order.

7. With such perspective in