C.Mohanarangan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2024 in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) & 6(1) 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 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 : Page3 of 6

i) 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;

ii) The accused is working as car Mechanic and the family is eking out a lawful livelihood, while the victim is now said to have been continuing her education in Lakshmi Narayana Arts and Science College, Dharmapuri.

¶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.

¶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. Page4 of 6

¶8For all the above reasons, Crl.O.P. No. 17680 of 2026 is allowed. The charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2024 in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri stands quashed. 09-07-2026 KKN Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri.

2.The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o17680oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. KKN CRLoOPoNo.o17680oofo2026 09-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY C.Mohanarangan W/o Chinnasamy, No.2/99, Perumal Kovil Medu, Thokkampatti Post, Thadangam, Dharmapuri – 636 705. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri. Crime No.23 of 2024 2. M.Sujithra D/o Murugan, D.No.125, Perumal Koil Medu Village, Thokkampatti Post, Dharmapuri. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to Quash the charge Sheet against the petitioner/Accused in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2024 in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri on the account of Marriage and compromise and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vasudevan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1 Page2 of 6