IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA V.Surya ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police AWPS, Mangalmedu, Perambalur District Crime NO.1 of 2025

2.R.Maharani Extension Officer, Veppur Union Office, Veppur, Perambalur District.

3.xxxxx ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records relating to Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Kannan.K For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA (Crl.Side)

For R2 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.S.Marshall

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.1 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 5(l) & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance of on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2025.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:-

4.1. The petitioner and the victim girl are known to each other and there was a consensual relationship between them. Therefore, the victim girl, on her own volition, went along with the petitioner and married him at a time when she was a minor.

4.2. After the victim attained majority, the petitioner and the victim got married. As on date, the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as husband and wife. Their marriage has also been registered before the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Pennadam, Cuddlore District, on

15.12.2025.

4.3. The parties have entered into a compromise. In view of the settlement between the petitioner and the victim girl, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the impugned proceedings to continue. Hence, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of compromise. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have also been filed.

5. The petitioner and the victim girl appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel and by Mr.J.John Parimala Mary, WHC231, Mangalmedu AWPS, Perambalur District.

6. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the petitioner and the victim girl have been living together as husband and wife.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties have 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 d