Manikandan v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Manikandan

2. Jayalakshmi .. Petitioners

Versus

1. State Rep. By, Inspector of Police, AWPS - Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District.

2. R.Poongodi, Extension Officer, Kumaratchi Panchayat Union Office, Kattumannarkoil (T.K.), Cuddalore District.

3. XXX .. Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for records relating to Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024, which is presently pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District in quashing the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Siva Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners / accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore district for the offences punishable under Section 344 of I.P.C.; Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6, 17 and 5(q)of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the petitioners / accused is that as per the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first petitioner and the respondent/victim were in a relationship, and the first petitioner allegedly forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. Consequently, the respondent Police registered Crime No.13 of 2024 at AWPS Sethiyathope, which culminated in the Final Report in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore district for offences under Section 344 of the IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(q), 6, and 17 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. However, the petitioners submits that the relationship was based on mutual love, and the initial marriage was performed without any 2/6

criminal intent or exploitation. Both parties subsequently solemnized their marriage in the year 2025 according to Hindu rites and are residing together harmoniously as husband and wife, and have been blessed with a minor child. The third respondent/victim has expressly conveyed her unwillingness to pursue the prosecution to protect their matrimonial harmony, and 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.13 of 2024 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore district for the offences punishable under Section 344 of the IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(q), 6, and 17 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. 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. 3/6

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 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.

6. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024 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 4/6

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.92 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore district.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, Cuddalore district, is quashed. 12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 6/6