IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

G.Madesh

S/o Ganesamoorthy ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police

D-Nagar Police Station,

Puducherry.(Crime No.95 of 2024). … 1^st respondent/Complainant

2.Dharani

D/o Chandirasekaran .. 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records in connection with the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.33 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012, Fast Track Court at Puducherry, and quash the same insofar as the

petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Ms.T.Lavanya

For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy

Public Prosecutor, Puducherry

Assisted by Mr.A.Alexander,

Government Advocate, Puducherry for R1

Ms.Gayathri Vasudevan for R2

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.33 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Fast Track Court at Puducherry, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the victim/2nd respondent belong to the same locality and are known to each other from their childhood and a love affair and consequential consensual relationship developed between them. He would further submit that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 18 years and the victim/2nd respondent was aged about 17 years and subsequently, after coming to know of their relationship, the parents of the petitioner as well as the victim had performed their marriage on 21.08.2025 at Arulmigu Devanatha Swami Temple, Thiruvanthipuram, as per the Hindu rites, custom and rituals and they are also taking steps to register their marriage at the SRO. As both the families have compromised on the issue, the petitioner has filed an affidavit to that effect and has filed the above criminal original petition seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against him on the ground of compromise.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/victim submitted that now, the petitioner and the victim/2nd respondent are living as husband and wife and the act between the parties was driven by love alone, rather than lust and she has no objection in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner being quashed and she has also filed an affidavit to that effect.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Police submitted that though the parties have 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, his mother, victim, and her mother are present before this Court at the time of hearing. They were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Mr.A.Vinayagamoorthy, S.G. Sub Inspector of Police, Dhanvanthari Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

6.The parties have filed a joint Memo of Compromise dated

14.11.2025 entered into between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/victim and they have filed separate affidavits dated 14.11.2025 else. The mothers of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/victim have also filed separate affidavits dated 01.12.2025.

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 fina