Periyamayan @ Sibi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl. O.P.(MD). No.17836 of 2025 Periyamayan @ Sibi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by its the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.

In Crime No. 17/2025.

2. Kanagalakshmi

3. Xxxxxx,, Xxxxxxx, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-This Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No. 17 of 2025 on the file of 1st respondent police and quash the same against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan, For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.K.Prakash for R2 & R3 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned F.I.R., in Crime No. 17 of 2025 for the offences under Section 89 BNS r/w. Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the victim, who was minor at the time of occurrence, had seduced the victim girl and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim. Hence, the mother of the victim lodged a complaint against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the victim girl had a love affair; that the victim girl born on 08.06.2007 after attaining majority, married the petitioner and the marriage was also registered. The learned counsel also produced the copy of the marriage certificate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the parties have now 2/6

entered into a compromise and both the parties have agreed the impugned F.I.R may be quashed.

5. The parties have also filed a joint compromise memo dated 29.10.2025. The petitioner and the defacto complainant / second respondent and the victim girl / third respondent are present before this Court in person. They are identified by Ms.S.Kalaivani, Vadamadurai AWPS, Dindigul District. All the parties confirmed the compromise arrived at between them.

6. 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 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 investigation and that it would cause undue hardship to all the parties concerned.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner had married the victim girl, who has now attained majority; marriage has been registered and in 3/6

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 investigation. Accordingly, the impugned F.I.R, is quashed.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The joint compromise memo dated 29.10.2025 shall form part and parcel of the order. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench forthwith and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry. 29.10.2025 LS 4/6

TO

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.

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

3.The Officer in-charge, High Court Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN,J LS Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17836 of 2025 29.10.2025 6/6