Thamaraiselvam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ponnamaravathi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25/09/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
1. Thamaraiselvam,
2. Tamilarasi,
3. Raja,
4. Chinnadurai, ... Petitioners Vs 1.State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District.
In Cr. No. 266 of 2021.
2.Chinnaiah 3.Xxxx, .......
...
Sivagangai District.
... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 1/9
to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.26/2022 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Satish Rajkumar, For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.S.Pandiyaraj
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.26/2022, on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, which was filed for the offences under Sections 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and Sections 109, 366(A) of IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6(1) of Protection of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2019.
2.The allegation in the final report is that when the victim girl was a minor, the first petitioner, who was in love with the victim girl, had sexual intercourse with her and also committed the offence of kidnapping.
2/9
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.09.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the victim girl has now married the first petitioner and also produced the marriage certificate. 4.The victim girl and her mother were present before this Court in person before this Court and were identified by M/s.L.Sarumathi, Woman Head Constable, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukottai District. This Court enquired the victim girl and her mother as to whether a marriage had taken place. The victim girl, who is now aged about 20 years and her mother confirmed that the victim girl has married the first petitioner. Hence, this Court had adjourned the case today to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to verify the genuineness of the marriage certificate.
5.Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions would confirm that the first petitioner has married the victim girl and the marriage has been registered.
6.The parties have filed a joint compromise memo, dated 19.09.2025 and the scanned copy of the compromise memo reads as follows:
3/9
4/9
5/9
6/9
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614 had held that in a case of this nature, where the victim, after attaining majority has married the accused and their marriage is also registered, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution and that it would cause undue hardship to all the parties concerned. 8.Considering the fact that the petitioner had married the victim girl, who has now attained majority, the marriage has been registered and in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund's case cited supra, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. Accordingly, the impugned final report in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2022 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, is quashed.
25.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp 7/9
TO 1.The District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, 2.The Inspector of Police, PonnamaravathiPolice Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
SUNDER MOHAN,J CP
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15792 of 2025 Date : 25/09/2025 9/9