Karthick v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash Spl.C.C.No. 102 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, for alleged offences under Sections 366 of IPC and 6 r/w. 5(l), 5(j)(ii) 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 victim child's date of birth is taken into account, and she has now turned a major;

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

iv) They have a child born to them;

¶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 Page4 of 6 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. 16990 of 2026, is allowed. The Spl.C.C.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal stands quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-07-2026 KKN Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Inspector of Police AWPS Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶2The Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal.

¶3The Pubic Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16990oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. KKN CRLoOPoNo.o16990oofo2026 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 and Crl.M.P.No. 11263 of 2026 Karthick S/o Arumugam, 2/13, Arunthathiar Street, Thirumalaipatty, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police AWPS Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District. Crime No.22 of 2022 2. Madhumitha D/o Moorthy, 5/510, Karaikurichipudur, Namakkal District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash all the proceedings Spl.CC.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Vasudevan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1 Page2 of 6