Prabudevan v. State Represented By, Inspector of Police,

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore District, for the alleged offences under Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 5(n), 5(i), 5(j)(ii) and 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (the POCSO Act) 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.

¶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 Page3 of 5 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) 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;

(b)The victim child's date of birth is taken into account, and she has now turned a major;

(c) It is submitted that the accused and the victim are married, share an emotional bond, and live as a family;

(d)They have a child born to them;

(e) The accused is working as a contract 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 5

¶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.17595 of 2026, is allowed. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore District stands quashed. 08-07-2026 PVS To

¶1The Mahila Court, Cuddalore District

¶2The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Chidambaram, Cuddalore.

¶3The Extension Officer, Panchayat Union, Melbhuvanagiri, (T.K) Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore District – 608601.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17595oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. PVS CRLoOPoNo.o17595oofo2026 08-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1. Prabudevan 2. Thillaisundhari @ Thillaikarasi 3. Meenatchi alias Meena 4. Krishnakumar 5. Kameshwaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Represented by, Inspector of Police, AWPS-Chidambaram, Cuddalore. 2. The Extension Officer, Panchayat Union, Melbhuvanagiri, (T.K) Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore Dist - 608601. 3. xxx ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for records relating to Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2025, which is presently pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore District in quashing the same and passing such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Siva Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1