IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :27.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.O.P.No.32311 of 2025 and

Crl.M.P.No.22419 of 2025

S.Sanjai … Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police

Mangalam, Villianur Police Station

Pondicherry

(Crime No.100 of 2024)

2. S.Abirami

3. XXX ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records of the case in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Puducherry

and quash the same as against the petitioner/accused.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raji

For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy

Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2025, on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Puducherry, for the offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and (l) and 6 of the

POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 449 of IPC, on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution is that whenever the daughter of the de facto complainant was alone at her residence, the petitioner illegally trespassed into her house and forcefully subjected her to penetrative sexual assault by giving false promise of marrying her, as a result of which, she became pregnant. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl due to which, the victim girl became pregnant and based on the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim, the case came to be registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, the victim girl gave birth to a female child on 06.08.2024. He would further submit that now, the matter has been compromised between the parties and after the victim girl attained majoriy, the marriage between the petitioner and the victim girl was performed in a temple on 25.05.2025 and the marriage was also registered before the Sub- Registrar Office, Bahour, on 30.06.2025. He would further submit that the the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as husband and wife along with their child under one roof and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the case further and a Joint Compromise Memo has also been filed to that effect. He would further submit 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.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) 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 an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

5. The parties were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Srinivasan, S.I. of Police, Mangalam Police Station.

6. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have compromised the matter and that the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as husband and wife under one roof with their child.

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 S