Kumaran v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.9239 of 2026 Kumaran .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

(Crime No.23 of 2025)

2. M.Anusuya, Social Welfare Extension Officer, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.

3. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report culminated in Spl.S.C.No.247 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court at Dharmapuri and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Saran Prasad For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 1/7

ORDER

The petitioner / accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.247 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of B.N.S, 2023; Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2019 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, has filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner / accused is that based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent (Social Welfare Extension Officer) stating that the petitioner took away the third respondent/minor victim, who was approximately 17 years old at the time, married her, and engaged in a physical relationship that resulted in her pregnancy. Consequently, the first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2025, which culminated in a final report pending trial in Spl.S.C.No. 247 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, for offences under Sections 137(2) and 87 of B.N.S, 2023; Sections 5(l), 5(j) (ii) and 6(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2019 2/7

and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. However, it is submitted that the petitioner and the victim were deeply in love for over two years. Due to family objections, the victim voluntarily requested the petitioner to take her away, a fact she affirmed in her Section 183 BNSS statement before the learned Magistrate and they married at Bali Perumal Temple. The victim has since attained majority, their marriage has been legally registered, and both families have fully accepted their union. The couple is currently living happily together as husband and wife and has been blessed with a child. The parties have entered into this compromise voluntarily without any coercion, Hence, praying for quashing the case on the ground of compromise..

3. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR in Crime No.23 of 2025 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Spl.S.C.No. 247 of 2025 before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of B.N.S, 2023; Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2019 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage 3/7

Act, 2006. 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.

4. 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.

5. Today, the petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and their identity is confirmed by Mrs.M.Jayalakshmi, Women Head Constable attached to the first respondent Police Station. 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.

6. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping Spl.S.C.No.247 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. 247 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, Spl.S.C.No. 247 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

5/7

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

6/7

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs and Crl.M.P.No.9239 of 2026 12.06.2026 7/7