Saravanan v. The Inspector Of Police

1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12028 OF 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12028 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.6167 & 6169 of 2021 Saravanan ... Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs.

1. The State rep. By, The Inspector of Police, VK Puram police station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.148 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant

2. Jeyaraman ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No.318 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Amardeep For R-1 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate.

For R-2 : Mr.A.Mohan

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.318 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

3. The defacto complainant Jeyaraman is present in person before me. The victim girl is also present in person before me. They have been duly identified by Thiru.A.Ravi, SI, attached to V.K.Puram police station. The petitioner and the victim girl have got married on 14.09.2020 at Sri Narayanasamy temple, Vikramasingapuram, Tirunelveli. The petitioner and the victim girl are residing together in the matrimonial home at Kodaikanal. The wedding photos have also been enclosed in the typed set of papers.

4. I am conscious that the offences under POCSO Act are not compoundable. However, a learned Judge of this Court, vide order dated 27.01.2021 in the decision reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 636 1/3

2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12028 OF 2021 ( Vijayalakshmi Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police) had held as follows:- "19.The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the second respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarath reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another reproted in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash non-compoundable offences.

One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.

20. In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual / personal in nature. It involves the second petitioner and the second respondent and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young who are still in their early twenties. The second respondent is working as an auto driver to eke his livelihood. Quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave way for the second petitioner and the second respondent to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings will only swell the mental agony of the victim girl and her mother and not to forget the second respondent as well."

5. Respectfully adopting the very same approach, I quash the impugned proceedings also. This criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PMU 2/3

3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.12028 OF 2021 Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1. The Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The Inspector of Police, VK Puram police station, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.I.SUTHAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-36395[F] dated 29/11/2021 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12028 of 2021 29.11.2021 MGJ(20.12.2021) 3P 5C 3/3