Judgment · High Court

Crl.O.P.No.14262 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.06.2026CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.O.P.No.14262 of 2026 Ranjith Kumar.. PetitionerVersus1. State rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station – Mangalamedu, Perambalur District. (Crime No.08/2025)

Tamilselvi, Rural Women Welfare Officer, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District.

XXX .. RespondentsPrayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the entire records in connection with Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and quash the same, on the ground of compromise. For Petitioner: Ms.S.RithikaFor Respondents: Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R11/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14262 of 2026ORDERThe petitioner / accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur for the offences punishable under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has filed this quash petition.2. The contention of the petitioner / accused is that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.

Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of entire materials, it is seen that the case is pending trial. At this 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14262 of 2026stage and also by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and decided to compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

Today, the petitioner and the second respondent are present before this Court and their identity is confirmed by the first respondent Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The parties have filed a joint compromise memo to that effect duly signed by both of them.

Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 - (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjarth and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14262 of 2026learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.