Santhosh v. State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in Special S
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant’s daughter got love affair with each other. Since they were minors, the defacto complainant warned them. But they had sexual relationship and thereby, the 2nd respondent’s daughter was conceived. The…
Judgment
CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page1 of 10IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMARCRL OP No. 11481 of 2026andCrl.MP.No.8238 of 2026 Santhosh S/o. Elango, No.88, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street, Melnaduvangarai, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40...Petitioner(s)Vs1.State rep. by The Inspector of PoliceW-7, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40.Crime No.8 of 20222.Meenakshi W/o.Gnanavel, No.88, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street, Menladuvangarai, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40.3.Xxxxx W/o XXXXXXXX,No. XXXXXXX,Chennai...Respondent(s)PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to the case in Spl.SC.No.2 of 2023 on the file of Sessions Judge Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and quash the same in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page2 of 10For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.KannanFor Respondent(s):Mr.R. RAJASEKARAN GA (CRL. SIDE)for R1Mr.M. SENTHIL KUMARFOR R2ORDERThe petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in Special S.C.No.2 of 2023 for offence under Sections 5(j), (ii) of POCSO @ 5(j) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Chennai, filed this Criminal Original Petition on the ground of compromise.
The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant’s daughter got love affair with each other. Since they were minors, the defacto complainant warned them. But they had sexual relationship and thereby, the 2nd respondent’s daughter was conceived. The 2nd respondent and her daughter went to KMC Hospital for check up and the duty Doctor informed the same to the first respondent police. Hence, complaint lodged. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page3 of 103. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant’s daughter are fell in love affair with each other. At that time, they were minors. They had sexual relationship and that, the defacto complainant’s was conceived and gave birth to a female child namely, S.Dhanyasri on 18.10.2022. The copy of the birth certificate of the female baby produced before this Court.
Thereafter, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner got married with the defacto complainant’s daughter on 03.11.2025 at Periyar Ambedkar Self Respect Marriage Centre, Purasawalkam, at Chennai. In respect of the same, the marriage certificate of the petitioner and the defacto complainant’s daughter was produced before this Court. They are living happily as husband and wife. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner and the defacto complainant’s daughter are living happily as husband and wife along with their female child, she is not inclined to proceed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the same, they entered into a Joint memo of compromise, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No.
11481 of 2026__________Page6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page7 of 104. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that in this case, during the relevant period, the defacto complainant’s daughter was 15 years old. Now, she attained majority and she gave birth to a female baby on 18.101.2022. Their marriage was registered. They are living as husband and wife happily along with their female child. 5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her daughter, who aged about 15 years, and the petitioner were in love relationship and her daughter conceived. At the time of giving birth to a female baby, an information was sent to the first respondent police and registered a case. Now, the defacto complainant’s daughter attained majority and marriage was solemnized between the defacto complainant’s daughter and the petitioner.
They produced the copy of the marriage certificate and the copy of the birth certificate of female baby. 6. Today, the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and her daughter along with female baby appeared before this Court, their identity is confirmed by Ms.P.Lakshmi, WSSI, W7 AWPS, Annanagar, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page8 of 10 7. During interaction, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant’s daughter informed that she attained majority and she is living happily with the petitioner as husband and wife and they were blessed with a female baby on 18.10.2022. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant informed that she is not inclined to proceed with the case and filed an affidavit to that effect. The Apex Court in the case of “K.Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1056”, considered the subsequent events and observed that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the petitioner as well as the victim.
Operative part
In view of the same, this Court finds that continuation of the proceedings will serve no purpose and it is only an abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in Special S.C.No.2 of 2023 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Chennai, is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page9 of 10 9. The affidavit and the Joint memo of Compromise filed by the petitioner and the second respondent/ defacto complainant and her daughter for compromising the offences shall form part of the records.05-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NosmsTo1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police W-7, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40. Crime No.8 of 2022.
The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 11481 of 2026__________Page10 of 10M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.smsCRL OP No. 11481 of 2026andCrl.MP.No.8238 of 202605-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in Special S
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.