S.Yuvaraj v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,(L And O)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
1. S.Yuvaraj
2. M.Sahadevan
3. Bhuvaneswari .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State rep by The Inspector of Police [L & O], W-16, All Woman Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.
Cr.No.280 of 2022.
2. District Child Welfare Officer, No.13, Samy Pillai Street, Choolai High Road, Choolai - 600 112.
3. XXXXX .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 now pending trial on the file of the Magalir Court at Allikulam, Chennai and consequentially quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thirumaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for RR-1 and 2 1/7
: Mr.J.Abhishek, for R3
ORDER
The petitioners / accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Court, Allikulam, Chennai for the offences punishable under Sections 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012, have filed this quash petition.
2. The contention of the petitioners / accused is that a complaint filed by the second respondent (jurisdictional Children Protection Officer) stating that the first petitioner and the third respondent/minor victim were in a romantic relationship since her school days, which led to a marriage and her subsequent pregnancy which came to the attention of the Child Welfare Officer/de facto complainant during the victim's seventh month of pregnancy. Consequently, based on the complaint, the first respondent Police registered Crime No.5 of 2025 against the petitioners (the first petitioner and his parents i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3), which culminated in a final report pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Court, Allikulam, Chennai, for offences under Sections 9 of 2/7
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The third respondent has now attained majority and is living willingly and happily with the first petitioner as his wife, residing together with his parents. The couple has been blessed with a one and half year-old child, and the first petitioner is gainfully employed and taking good care of the family. The petitioners submit that the continuation of the trial would severely disrupt their peaceful family life and the future of the minor child. The parties have entered into this compromise voluntarily without any coercion, Hence, praying for quashing the case on the ground of compromise.
4. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR in Crime No.280 of 2022 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 before the Magalir Court, Allikulam, Chennai for the offences punishable under Sections 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 3/7
2012. He further submitted that now the case is at the stage of pending trial. In the meantime, both the petitioners and the second respondent arrived at a compromise and settled the issues between them.
5. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of entire materials, it is seen that the case is pending trial. At this stage and also by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and decided to compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
6. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mrs.V.Adhilakshmi, Women Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to 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.
7. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 pending, even though, the offences 4/7
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.80 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Court, Allikulam, Chennai.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2025 on the file of the Magalir Court, Allikulam, Chennai, is quashed.
12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To
1. The Magalir Court, Allikulam.
5/7
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3. The Inspector of Police [L & O], W-16, All Woman Police Station, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.
4. The District Child Welfare Officer, No.13, Samy Pillai Street, Choolai High Road, Choolai - 600 112.
6/7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
grs 12.06.2026 7/7