CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No. 12250 of 2026 1. Tamilselvam, S/o Saravanan, No.607, E Block, Katpada Housing Board, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. 2. Saravanan, S/o Saminathan, No.607, E Block, Katapada Housing Board, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. 3. Kuppumma W/o Saravanan, No.607, E Block, Katapada Housing Board, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. 4. Mariyappan S/o Kesavarao, No.07/496, Somangalam T.C.Nagar, Kundrathur, Sriperumbudur, Chennai – 600 069. 5. Gowri W/o Mariyappan, No.07/496, Somangalam T.C.Nagar, Kundrathur, Sriperumbudur, Chennai – 600 069. ..Petitioner(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Vs 1. The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, W13, All Women Police Station, Thondairpet, Chennai – 600 021. 2. M.Banumathi The Urban Welfare Officer, North Madras, Chennai – 600 021. 3. M.Geetha D/o Mariyappan, No.607, E Block, Katpada Housing Board, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.182/2025 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Session Judge Magalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Dheerendran For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side) for R1 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash Spl.S.C.No. 182 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 9 & 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 5(1), 5(i) & (ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (the POCSO Act) on the ground of compromise https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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. 2. The 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. 3. This 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. 4. The following circumstances of this case are borne in mind: 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; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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; v) The accused is working as a skilled labour doing interior work and the family is eking out a lawful livelihood. 5. The 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. 6. This 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. 7. The 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 8. For all the above reasons, Crl.O.P. No.18404 of 2026 is allowed. The Spl.S.C.No. 182 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai stands quashed. 14-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No KKN To 1. The Inspector of Police, W13, All Women Police Station, Thondairpet, Chennai – 600 021. 2. M.Banumathi The Urban Welfare Officer, North Madras, Chennai – 600 021. 3. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. KKN CRL OP No. 18404 of 2026 14-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis