The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC allows quashing of proceedings when disputes are of a private nature and do not pose serious societal harm.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in Spl.SC No.208 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act , Madurai.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the petitioner and the fourth respondent were in contact when she was studying 8th standard. The petitioner took the victim to his house and had sexual relationship with her. On 22.07.2021, when the victim was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Karisalkulam, by the third respondent, who is her mother, it was found that she was four months pregnant. Hence a case in Crime No.34 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 5 (1), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act , 1989, against the petitioner and the same culminated in laying final report in Spl.CC.No.208 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under , Madurai, for the same offences. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the Marriage Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Vilangudi, issued a marriage certificate dated 25.02.2026 vide Marriage Sl.No.HMR/Vilangudi/9/2026 certifying that the marriage between the petitioner and the fourth respondent/victim girl has been solemnized on 04.09.2025 and the same has been registered on 25.02.2026 at serial No. 9 of Register of Marriages maintained under the Tamilnadu Registration of Marriages Act , 2009 and the parties have now resolved the dispute amicably. It is also stated that the first petitioner and the fourth respondent/victim are leading matrimonial life peacefully. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 11.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant and the fourth respondent / victim are present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.Kalyani, AWPS, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District. The defacto complainant and the victim have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner herein. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and not the result of any coercion or undue influence.

5. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is essentially private in nature and the quashment would secure the ends of justice. The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between offences arising out of personal or matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions and similar private wrongs, and serious or heinous offences having grave

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 impact on society, holding that the latter category cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.

6. The said principles were succinctly crystallised in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat², wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was emphasised that the paramount consideration is whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the dispute predominantly bears a c