IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Ajith Kumar ..Petitioner Vs

1. State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, W-33, Virukampakkam AWPS, Chennai.

(Crime No.7/24)

2. Kothai ..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023, praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor For R1 Mr. K.Subash Chandra Bose For R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.7 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 r/w. Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the ground of compromise.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are known to each other; there was a consensual relationship between them; since it was objected to by the parents of the petitioner and the victim girl, without understanding the consequences, they eloped from their home and got married in a temple in Thiruverkadu and later, returned to their respective home pursuant to which the victim became pregnant; at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was aged 17 years; after the victim girl attained majority, their marriage was performed by their relatives and it has also been registered on 19.02.2026 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Periamet; now, the victim girl is 18 years old; out of their wedlock, they have a female child born on 21.08.2024; the petitioner and the victim girl have been leading a happy married life; when they 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. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Police 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. 4. Mr.M.Jainul Arabu, WSI, W-33 All Women Police Station, Virugambakkam, was present before this Court at the time of hearing and she identified the parties.

5. 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.

6. 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, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a manifes