IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. E.Ajith Kumar

2. A.Mahendran

3. Meenatchi

4. Emaraj

5. Manjula ...Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

W-6, Ayanavaram All Women Police Station,

Chennai – 600 023.

2. XXXXX ...Respondents

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of

BNSS, 2023 to quash the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.39 of 2025 on the file of

Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under the POCSO Act, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ayyanar

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

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside the

charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under the POCSO Act, Chennai filed for the offences

under Sections 5(i) and 5(j)(ii) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections

9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 1929.

2. The victim and the accused are related. The first petitioner was in a relationship with the victim and they had a consensual relationship, due to which the victim became pregnant. At the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was 21 years old, while the victim was 17 years old. Petitioners 2 to 5, who are the parents of the first petitioner and the victim, in order to safeguard their family honour, arranged a marriage between them. When the vicitm was taken to the hospital, a case came to be registered against the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner and the de facto complainant are living together as husband and wife and the victim has also delivered a child, which is now seven months old. Now, the parties have compromised the matter and they have also filed a joint memo of compromise dated 13.10.2025 before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent / de facto complainant has also not chosen to controvert the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

5. 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 offence, has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

6. Ms.Vijaya Chitra, WHC-31137, W-6, Ayanavaram All Women Police Station, Chennai – 600 023, was present before this Court at the time of hearing and she has identified the parties.

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 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 i