IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :12.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.O.P.No.31101 of 2025 and

Crl.M.P.No.21330 of 2025

1. Francies

2. Sagayaraj 3. Roseleen

4. Anusaya … Petitioners

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

The Inspector of Police

All Women Police Station, Sriperumbudur

Tiruvallur District

(Crime No.5 of 2025)

2. Kavya ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records relating to the impugned Charge Sheet in Spl.S.C.No.144 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court,

Kanchipuram and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Spl.S.C.No.144 of 2025, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, for the offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 366 of IPC, on the ground of compromise.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1^st petitioner. The 4^th petitioner is the mother of the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent. He further submitted that there was a love affair between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant and hence, their parents, without understanding the consequences, performed the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant, who was a minor. Subsequently, the de facto complainant became pregnant and based on the information given by the hospital authority, a case came to be registered against the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that after the de facto complainant attained majority, the marriage between the de facto complainant and the 1^st petitioner was performed in a church on 21.11.2025 and their marriage was also registered before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai on 02.12.2025. Meanwhile, the de facto complainant delivered a male child and now, they all are living together happily under one roof and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the case any further. He further submitted that when the parties have compromised the matter, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the impugned proceedings and hence, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of compromise.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 offences, has to consider the issue as to whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

4. The petitioners and the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.B.Bharathi, WSSI (1271), AWPS, Sriperumbudur.

5. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have compromised the matter and now, the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant are living together as husband and wife under one roof with their child.

6. 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 petitioners.

7. 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 Justic