IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.29352 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19958 of 2025 S.Karthi … Petitioner Vs.

1. The State Inspector of Police AWPS Police station Velur, Namakkal District (Spl.SC.No.57 of 2025 on the fiel of fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal)

2. XXXX ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records relating to the Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2025, on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2025, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal District, for the offences under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner abducted the minor victim girl/de facto complainant and performed child marriage with her in a temple and also committed penetrative sexual assault on her for several times due to which, the victim girl became pregnant. Thereafter, based on the information given by the hospital authority, the first respondent police registered the case against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the victim girl/de facto complainant. There was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl and without understanding the consequences, the petitioner married the victim girl in a temple. He would further submit that subsequently, a female child was born to them and their marriage has also been registered before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Velur and now, they all are living together under one roof. He would further submit that the victim/de facto complainant has filed a consent affidavit for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner and a Joint Compromise Memo, signed by both the parties has also been filed. He would also submit that when the petitioner and the victim/de facto complainant have compromised the matter, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the impugned proceedings and hence, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed on the ground of compromise.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the 1^st 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 offence, has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

5. The petitioner and the victim girl/de facto complainant were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.K.Arunkumar, HC-1758, Velur P.S., Namakkal District.

6. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as husband and wife and their marriage has also been registered before the Sub-Registrar’s office, Velur, Namakkal, on 04.11.2025.

7. 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.

8. 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 th