IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

and

CRL MP Nos.23839 and 23840 of 2025

1. Pradeep

2. Latha

Petitioners

Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of

Police,

Mathur Police Station,

Krishnagiri, District.

(Crime No.369 of 2024)

2.Suguna, 3.xxxxxx

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx Krishnagiri District.

Respondents

PRAYER

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records and quash the final report in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2025 on the file of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Krishnagiri District.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Selvam

For Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and quash the final report in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2025 on the file of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner and the victim girl are residents of the same village and they are known to each other for a long time. There was a consensual relationship between them and since it was opposed to by the de facto complainant/second respondent, mother of the victim, a case came to be registered. Coming to know about the relation, an objection was raised by the second respondent, mother of the victim. Later, the first petitioner and the victim eloped from their home and they were staying in the house of the second petitioner, who is the aunt of the first petitioner. Later, based on the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.16 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Section 366 of IPC and Sections 7 read with 8 & Sections 11(v) read with 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act by the first respondent police.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that now the families have patched up and the first petitioner has married the victim at Sakthi Vinayakar Thiru Kovil, Maniyakaranpalayam, Ganapathy (E) & (W)., Coimbatore North, Coimbatore, on 22.11.2025 and the marriage is also registered at the office of the Marriage Officer/SRO, Ganapathi on 27.11.2025. The first petitioner and victim are living as husband and wife and they have also filed a joint compromise memo and hence, the impugned proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed on the ground of compromise.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first petitioner had kidnapped the victim when she was a minor and a case came to be registered. There was a physical relationship between them and a case was registered under the POCSO Act as aforesaid. However, he would submit that the first respondent understands that the first petitioner has married the victim and they are living as husband and wife under one roof.

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 their counsel and parents of the first petitioner. They also admitted to the marriage between them and they are living together as husband and wife.

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 Marriage Officer/SRO, Ganapathi on 27.11.2025.

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, Form