CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.02.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 Shreenithi ... Petitioner/victim Vs 1. State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District. [Cr.No.641 of 2019] … 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Selvarani Extension Officer, Erumapatty Union, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District. … 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant 3. Karthi @ Karthick … 3rd Respondent/Accused PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 on the file of Sessions Judge, FT Mahila Court, Namakkal and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Subash For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition, is filed by the victim, to quash the case in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, filed for the offences under Sections 9, 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO, 2012 and Section 366 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/3rd respondent was the maternal uncle of the victim; that he had married the petitioner/victim, when she was 17 years and committed penetrative sexual assault. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/victim would submit that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have reduced the terms of compromise in writing. He had produced the Joint Memo of Compromise entered into between the petitioner/victim and the accused/3rd respondent. The scanned copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise, is as follows: 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 4. The above memo would show that the accused/3rd respondent had married the petitioner/victim and therefore have requested this Court to quash the final report in Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. 5. The petitioner/victim and the accused/3rd respondent, are present in person, whose identity is confirmed by Mrs.Thangam, Special Sub Inspector (907), Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal. This Court on enquiry confirmed the fact that the petitioner/victim had married the accused/3rd respondent and they are blessed with two children. That apart, this Court finds from Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the petitioner/victim, that she had stated that she married the accused/3rd respondent on her own volition and she did not intend to give any complaint. The petitioner is now aged 21 years. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court is of the view that further proceedings in Spl.SC No.56 of 2022 would be a futile exercise. Hence, this Court is 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 inclined to quash the final report in Spl.SC No.56 of 2022. Accordingly, the case in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, is quashed. 24.02.2025 ars 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 SUNDER MOHAN. J., ars To 1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 2. The Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District. 3. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022 24.02.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis