SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Prasanth – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karungalpalayam, Erode District – Respondent
CRL OP No. 8824 of 2026|CRL MP No. 6263 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Devaraj
For the Respondents: Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, T. Harshana

Criminal proceedings may be quashed under the court's inherent powers when subsequent events, such as a legal marriage and the birth of children, render the continuation of the trial an abuse of the process of law and detrimental to a happy family life.

Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Compromise in POSCO and Marriage cases - Where parties have since married, attained majority, and are leading a happy family life with children, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. (Para 8)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Ground Reality - Courts should consider subsequent events and avoid disturbing a stable family life established between the petitioner and the victim. (Para 8)

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the subsequent marriage and compromise between the petitioner and the victim.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and summary of the prosecution's allegations regarding the minor victim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. verification of subsequent marriage and current marital status of the parties. (Para 3 , 4)

Erode.

(Crime No.383 of 2022)

3. Sri Lekha Selvam

4. Saranya ..Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.49 of 2024 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Mahila Court, Erode and quash the same.

For Petitioner: Mr. M. Devaraj

For Respondents: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Ms. T. Harshana for R1 and R2

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2026 02:05:16 pm )

CRL OP No. 8824 of 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.49 of 2024 for

offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act 2012 , Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 and Sections 366, 344 and 376(3) of IPC, before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Erode, has filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 4th respondent was living with

her mother and completed her 12th standard. On 13.06.2021, she secretly married the petitioner, but continued to reside in their respective homes. Subsequently, she became pregnant and informed the petitioner; upon examination at a Primary Health Centre, she was found to be eight months pregnant. On that day, the victim was 17 years old. Hence, based on the information received from the Erode Child line Project Coordinator, the police registered a case. The investigation has now been completed and a charge sheet

has been filed listing 23 witnesses.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and

the 4th respondent are husband and wife, who got legally married on 26.04.2024

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2026 02:05:16 pm )

CRL OP No. 8824 of 2026

and their marriage was registered on 06.11.2025. It was further submitted that a second male baby was born to them on 26.09.2025 and they are now leading a

happy marital life. Hence, he prays for quashing.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, during the relevant period, the victim was a minor and her date of birth is 28.06.2005. The victim was examined by the Doctor. It was further submitted that the victim gave birth to a second male baby on 26.09.2025. The 1st respondent Police also enquired and found from

the neighbours that they are living as husband and wife happily.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials available on record, including the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the joint compromise memo, the marriage registration

certificate and the birth certificate of baby.

6. Today the petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared before this Court

and their identities were confirmed by the 2nd respondent Police. During interaction, the 4th respondent/victim informed that she attained majority, both the petitioner and the 4th respondent/victim are living as husband and wife and

they were blessed with a 2nd male baby on 26.09.2025.

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2026 02:05:16 pm )

CRL OP No. 8824 of 2026

7. The joint compromise memo is extracted hereunder: “The petitioner states that the Final report has been

filed against the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 5(1)(ii),6,9, of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act 2012 , section 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(2)(va) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015, 366, 344, 376(3) IPC in special SC No.49 of 2024, on the file of the Sessions

Judge, Fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top