IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Premkumar ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Arakkonam All Women Police Station, Ranipet District.

Crime No.38 of 2025.

2. Sandhiya ..Respondent(s)

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.180 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranipet and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.V.I.Prashanth for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.180 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the victim.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the hospital authorities, Government Hospital, Walajapet, a case in Crime No.38 of 2025 was registered on the file of the 1^st respondent-Police against the petitioner and on completion of investigation, the impugned final report came to be filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, for the offences under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Sections 5(I), 5(j)(ii) and 6(I) of the POCSO Act and Section 87 of BNS and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.180 of

2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case arises out of a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl. The victim girl, on her own volition, eloped with the petitioner/accused and that they thereafter contacted marriage on 05.12.2024, at a time when the victim girl was a minor. Subsequently, the victim girl became pregnant. He further submitted that after the victim girl attained majority, the parents of the petitioner and the victim legally solemnized their marriage on 12.12.2025, which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Periamet, on the same day. As on date, the petitioner and the victim girl are residing together as husband and wife. Therefore, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the victim girl, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the impugned proceedings and the same are liable to be quashed on the ground of compromise.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent police submitted that though the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to whether the offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

6. The petitioner and the victim girl along were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel on either side and also by Ms.R.Sharalaa, Sub Inspector, AWPS, Arakkonam. 7. 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.

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 14