The court highlights the necessity of balancing legal rigidity with compassion in cases involving non-compoundable offences and family harmony.

O R D E R

The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.149 of 2023, pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Court, Chennai, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the victim girl.

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

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant/R3, who is the mother of the victim girl/R2, a case in Crime No.6 of 2023 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 Special Court for exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai for the offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.149 of 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case arises from a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl/R2, who are close relatives which developed a love affair and the petitioner shared the photos of their intimate moments, at which time the victim girl was a minor. Now, the victim girl has attained majority. He would further submit that the parties have entered into a compromise and the petitioner as well as the victim girl and de facto complainant filed affidavits and also joint memo of compromise for quashing the impugned proceedings on the ground of compromise. Therefore, when the petitioner and the victim girl have compromised the matter, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the impugned proceedings; hence, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of compromise.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent 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 respondents 2 & 3 are present before this Court and they were identified by the learned counsel on either side and also by Ms.S.Uma, SSI, W9-All Women Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai.

7. This Court also enquired both the parties and is satisfied that the parties have compromised the matter.

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 in the present case, considering that the appellant is convicted of a heinous offence. 6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society,