The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is essentially private or matrimonial, the settlement is voluntary, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in Spl.C.C. No. 140 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli District.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the first petitioner and the victim girl had love affair and that the petitioners 2 and 3 arranged marriage of the victim girl with the first petitioner and the marriage was solemnized on 08.09.2021 and the victim girl was 16 years old at the time of the marriage and the first petitioner had physical relationship with the victim for several times, due to which, the victim became pregnant and the child died due to premature birth. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant/second respondent, a case in Crime No.10 of 2022 was registered before the first respondent police against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 5(1), 5(j) (ii) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 388 of IPC and the same culminated in laying final report in Spl.C.C. No. 140 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, for the same offences. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. It is further submitted that the victim attaining her age of majority had married the petitioner. Admittedly, the Sub Registrar, Kallidaikurichi, issued a marriage certificate dated 14.03.2025 vide Marriage Sl.No.TMR/Kallidaikurichi/15/2025 certifying that the marriage between the first petitioner and the third respondent/victim girl has been solemnized on 12.03.2025 and the same has been registered on 14.03.2025 at serial No.15 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 third respondent/victim are leading matrimonial life peacefully. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 06.02.2026 has been filed before this Court.

4. The petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant and the third respondent / victim are present before this Court in person and are identified by Ms.M.Arul Selvi, Woman Head Constable, All Women Police Station, Ambasamudram. The defacto complainant and the victim have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners 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 2012 (10) SCC 303), 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 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 Gujarat , (2 2017 (9) SCC 641), wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositi