Compromise in non-compoundable offences can lead to quashing proceedings when considering family dynamics and societal interests.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the third respondent/victim.

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.21 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent Police against the petitioner, for the offences under Sections 5 (I), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint 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.24 of 2025.

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

4.1. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/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. Subsequently, the victim girl became pregnant and gave birth to a male child. After the victim attained majority, the petitioner and the victim have got their marriage registered before the Sub Registrar’s Office, Periampet, on 13.01.2026. 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 respondentt/victim girl along with their child, appeared before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as well as by Ms.Indirani, SSI, AWPS, Mangalamedu, 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 the proceedings should be quashed