Rajaraman v. The State Rep. by

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.11 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act 2012 r/w Section 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 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. Page3 of 6

¶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 driver 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.18912 of 2026 is allowed. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, stands quashed. 17-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,Chennai

¶2The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.21 of 2025.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18912oofo2026 D.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHY,oJ. sms CRLoOPoNo.o18912oofo2026 17-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1. Rajaraman 2. Mathi @ Mathiazhagan 3. Vasanthi 4. Padmavathi 5. Murugesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.21 of 2025. 2. P.Stella Extension Officer, Social Welfare Officer, Singaravelar Maligai, 8th Floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-01. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to Spl.SC.No.11 of 2026 on the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,Chennai and compromise Quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Honb'le Court. For Petitioner(s): MR.T.BALAJI For Respondent(s): MR.M.MOHAMED RIYAZ GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRIMINAL SIDE) FOR R1 Page2 of 6