IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.M.P.Nos.23209 & 23211 of 2025 Vishwa @ Pavithran Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Station House Officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry.

2.Visalatchi, Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records of Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2025 pending learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act, Puducherry and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Balavijayan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandra murthy, Public Prosecutor (Puduchery) for R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim who was a minor at the time of incident, are known to each other and there was a love affair between them and there was also a consensual relationship between them. On the basis of the complaint of the mother of the victim, a case was registered in Crime No.201 of 2024 for the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now, the victim has attained majority and the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was solemnised on 10.11.2025 and the same has been duly registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry on 13.11.2025 and now, the petitioner and the victim are living together as husband and wife under one roof. He would further submit that the 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 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 Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing on behalf of the

1^st respondent-Police submitted that the case is posted for trial and 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 and the 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.R.Chandrasegaran, SI, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry.

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, Puducherry, on 13.11.2025.

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 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