Ranjith Kumar v. State Rep. By 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 Ranjith Kumar .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Mangalamedu, Perambalur District.

(Crime No.08/2025)

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

3. XXX .. Respondents Prayer : 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.Rithika For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), for R1 1/6

ORDER

The 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. 8 of 2025 was registered on 12.02.2025 on the file of the first Respondent police against the petitioner. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, for alleged offences 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. However, it is submitted that the petitioner and the victim were deeply in love. After the victim (born on 07.05.2008) attained majority, the parties lawfully married on 18.05.2026. They are currently leading a happy and peaceful matrimonial life and have been blessed with a one-year-old female child. The victim has stated her unwillingness to pursue the case 2/6

against the petitioner, emphasizing that the continuation of the trial or any conviction would cause great hardship to their family and minor child, thereby defeating the ends of justice. 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.8 of 2025 has been registered and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 before 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. He further submitted that now the case is at the stage of pending trial. In the meantime, both the petitioner 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 3/6

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 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.

6. 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

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and consequently, Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, is quashed. 12.06.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Mangalamedu, Perambalur District.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 12.06.2026 6/6