Ashok Kumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the Spl.S.C.No.249 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore, for alleged offences under Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 5(n), 6 and 17 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (the POCSO Act) and 127(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 on the ground of compromise between the parties. The parties are present before the court and, on examination, stand by their compromise and do not want the case to proceed further.

¶2The broad contours of the High Court's power to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS in respect of compromise of non-compoundable offences are laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh -Vs-State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303)and other subsequent judgments. Page3 of 6

¶3This is a serious case under the POCSO Act, with societal ramifications. As such, the Court will not rely solely on the version of the victim child/Prosecutrix but has a duty to consider the entire gamut of facts and attendant circumstances.

¶4The following circumstances of this case are borne in mind :  A careful perusal of the allegations does not reveal a forceful assault or enticement under direct or indirect pressure, but the offence arises out of a premature adolescent romantic relationship rooted in mutual innocence and biological attraction;  The victim child's date of birth is taken into account, and she has now turned a major;  It is submitted that the accused and the victim are married, share an emotional bond, and live as a family;  They have a child born to them;  The accused is working as manual labour and the family is eking out a lawful livelihood.

¶5The fact that the prosecutrix or the family members are no longer interested in the prosecution, that they are not going to co-operate with the prosecution, and that there is no likelihood of a meaningful trial is also taken into account. Page4 of 6

¶6This Court, in Vijayalakshmi and Another -Vs-State (2021 SCCOnline Mad 317), has already taken the view that such adolescent relationships should not result in the incarceration of the boy alone and has called for appropriate legislative action to deal with these cases separately.

¶7The purpose of exercising extraordinary power is to maintain social order. The very purpose behind the POCSO Act will be lost if the trial is allowed to proceed in the instant case, which is, pure and simple, a private relationship between the accused and the victim child.

¶8For all the above reasons, Crl.O.P. No.17743 of 2026, is allowed. The Spl.S.C.No.249 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore stands quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10-07-2026 jas Page5 of 6 To

1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o17743oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. jas Crl.O.P.No.17743oofo2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11846oando11847oofo2026 10-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.17743 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11846 and 11847 of 2026 1. Ashok Kumar S/o.Govindarasu 2. Susheela W/o.Govindarasu 3. Selvi W/o.Murugesan 4. Vengat S/o.Murugesan 5. Murugesan S/o.Venkatesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District. 2. Xxxxx W/o.XXXXX, No.XXXXX, XXXXXX, Cuddalore District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in the Spl.S.C.No.249 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under POCSO Act at Cuddalore and Quash the same. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.B.Priyadarshini For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1