BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Ajithkumar ...Petitioner /Sole Accused Vs

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.23 of 2025) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2.Muniyasamy ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant

3.XXXXX ... 3^rd Respondent / Victim PRAYER :-

To call for the records relating to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.

76 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh for R1 Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Mr.S.Prabha for R.2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC /

Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the charge sheet in Spl.SC.No.76 of 2025 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the petitioner had eloped with the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto complainant / second respondent, a case in Crime No.23 of 2025 was registered on the file of the first respondent against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 5(1) and 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the same culminated in laying final report in Spl.SC.No.76 of 2025 before the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, for the same offences. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this Criminal Original Petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the Marriage Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Mudukulathur, issued a marriage certificate dated 11.02.2026 vide Marriage Sl.No.TMR/Mudhukulathur/ 17 /2026 certifying that the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent/victim girl has been solemnized on 16.11.2025 and the same has been registered on 11.02.2026 at serial No.17 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 petitioner and the third respondent/victim are leading matrimonial life peacefully. A Joint Compromise Memo dated 13.02.2026 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 Mr.Sendurpandi, SSI, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. The defacto complainant and the victim have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner 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 Punjab¹, 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 Gujarat², wherein the Supreme Court, after surveying the earlier precedents, laid down broad propositions governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. It was

1 2012 (10) SCC 303 2 2017 (9) SCC 641 emphasised that the paramount c