Offence Purely Personal: Madras High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Man Who Married 17 Year Old Girl

Justice N Sathish Kumar relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the court had laid down guidelines that must be taken into consideration by the courts while quashing non-compoundable offences. As per the principles, if the crime is purely against society with overriding public interest, it cannot be quashed even if the parties have entered into a settlement.

In the present case, the court noted that the offence was purely personal and involved the future of two young persons in their early twenties. The court added that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings and it would only cause mental agony to the accused, victim and their parents.

“In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the petitioner and the third respondent and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young persons who are still in their early twenties. Quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave way for the petitioner and the third respondent to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of the petitioner and the third respondent and their parents as well,” the court said.

The court was hearing the petition filed by a man seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 5 (1), 5(j)(ii), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

The prosecution's case was that the petitioner had developed a love affair with the victim girl, who was 17 year old, and committed penetrative sexual assault on her on several occasions and got her pregnant.

The victim and her family, along with the petitioner, filed a joint compromise memo stating that the petitioner and victim got married and they were running their matrimonial life peacefully and happily and had a female child. The parties had informed the court that they were not willing to pursue the case and had decided to withdraw the case and thus sought to quash the FIR.

The Government Advocate informed that though the parties had entered into a compromise, the court had to consider the seriousness of the offence and see of an offence in this nature could be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.

The court noted that the accused and the victim were now married and had a daughter. The court added that such events keep happening in villages and towns where the police register FIRs based on a complaint, and the boy gets arrested, bringing his youthful life to a grinding halt.

“The petitioner and the third respondent are also in their early twenties. Incidents of this nature keep occurring regularly even now in villages and towns and occasionally in cities. After the complaint being lodged, the police register FIRs for offence, as a consequence of such a FIR being registered, invariably the boy gets arrested and thereafter, his youthful life comes to a grinding halt and a person caught in a situation like this will surely have no defense if the criminal case is taken to its logical end,” the court noted.

Noting that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case pending, the court was inclined to quash the case. The court thus allowed the plea and quashed the case pending against him.

Counsel for Petitioner: M/s. M. Vijaya Ragavan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Vinodhraja, Government Advocate [Crl. Side]

Case Title: Kamaraj v. State and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

Case No: CRL OP No. 27976 of 2025