IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.Nos.3024 & 3025 of 2026 Nandha Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

(Crime No.17 of 2023)

2. Chithra

3. XXXX ... Respondents P RAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the final report in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2024, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri District.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 & R3 Mr.M.Venkatesh

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2024, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.

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. 17 of 2023 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and later, altered to one under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Sections 5(l) & 6(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, the impugned charge sheet was filed before Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri and the Court took cognizance of the case and numbered it as Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2024.

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

4.1. The petitioner and the victim/third respondent, who is the daughter of the de facto complainant are known to each other and there was a consensual relationship between them. Therefore, the victim, 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 their marriage solemnized on 05.06.2025 at the petitioner’s house. As on date, the petitioner and the victim are living together as husband and wife. Their marriage has also been registered before the Joint-

II Sub-Registrar’s Office, Dharmapuri, on 27.01.2026.

4.3. The parties have entered into a compromise. In view of the settlement between the petitioner and respondents 2 & 3, 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 respondents 2 and 3, appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.T.Thamaraiselvi, WGr-I 533, AWPS, Dharmapuri.

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

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first 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 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 w