Compromise between parties can lead to quashing of proceedings in serious cases if societal interests align.

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2025, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the victim/ third respondent.

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

3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, namely the Village Welfare Officer, a case in Crime No.48 of 2024 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 Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Sections 5(I), 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the impugned charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance of on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2025.

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

4.1. The petitioner and the third respondent/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 their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Periamet, on 05.01.2026. As on date, the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as husband and wife.

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 third respondent/victim girl appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.A.Geetha, SI, 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 with their child.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 decided is whether th