CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 and CRL.MP.No.9634 of 2026 Ramesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State Rep. by Station House Officer AWPS, Cuddalore District. Cr. No. 27/2020 2.Vidhyasankari ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in Special, Sessions, Case No.62 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore and quash the same and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice. __________ Page1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.U.Pressanna For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.K.Kannadhasan, for R2 ORDER

The petitioner/accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 for offences under Sections 503, 506(1), of IPC r/w. Section 11(5), 12, 13(c) of POCSO Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, filed this quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant herein was was born on 07.06.2001. While she was studying in School during 2015-16, she used to travel in the petitioner’s van. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner spoke to her in a friendly manner. Subsequently, the de facto complainant pursued her higher studies in a College. In such situation, the petitioner forced the de facto complainant to love him, threatening that otherwise he would commit suicide. Thereafter, he insisted that she leave her home and marry him. He also sent unwanted SMS to her parents’ mobile phones and forwarded morphed pictures. Hence, she lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered and the final report came to be __________ Page2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 filed before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore, which was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant had not voluntarily lodged the complaint against the petitioner and that it was only due to stress and compulsion. The incidents mentioned in the complaint had occurred with the consent of the de facto complainant and due to the age factor. The de facto complainant is presently working in the IT Sector and is leading a stress-free and dignified life. Further, she has attained marriageable age and is searching for a suitable groom. In such circumstances, she is not willing to proceed with the criminal complaint and entered into a compromise with the petitioner, settling the issue. In view of the same, they filed a Joint Compromise Memo, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: __________ Page3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that, based on the complaint, an FIR was registered, a charge sheet was filed, and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act. He further submitted that, although the parties have entered into a compromise in respect of the case, this Court, considering the seriousness of the offence alleged, must examine whether offences of such a nature can be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between parties. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 7.The petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. __________ Page7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

9.The main issue that requires for consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. __________ Page8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS __________ Page9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 To 1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore 2.The Station House Officer AWPS, Cuddalore District. Cr. No. 27/2020 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. __________ Page10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 15-06-2026 __________ Page11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 and CRL.MP.No.9634 of 2026 Ramesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State Rep. by Station House Officer AWPS, Cuddalore District. Cr. No. 27/2020 2.Vidhyasankari ..Respondent(s) To call for the records in Special, Sessions, Case No.62 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore and quash the same and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice. __________ Page1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.U.Pressanna For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1 Mr.K.Kannadhasan, for R2 ORDER

The petitioner/accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 for offences under Sections 503, 506(1), of IPC r/w. Section 11(5), 12, 13(c) of POCSO Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, filed this quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant herein was was born on 07.06.2001. While she was studying in School during 2015-16, she used to travel in the petitioner’s van. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner spoke to her in a friendly manner. Subsequently, the de facto complainant pursued her higher studies in a College. In such situation, the petitioner forced the de facto complainant to love him, threatening that otherwise he would commit suicide. Thereafter, he insisted that she leave her home and marry him. He also sent unwanted SMS to her parents’ mobile phones and forwarded morphed pictures. Hence, she lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered and the final report came to be __________ Page2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 filed before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore, which was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant had not voluntarily lodged the complaint against the petitioner and that it was only due to stress and compulsion. The incidents mentioned in the complaint had occurred with the consent of the de facto complainant and due to the age factor. The de facto complainant is presently working in the IT Sector and is leading a stress-free and dignified life. Further, she has attained marriageable age and is searching for a suitable groom. In such circumstances, she is not willing to proceed with the criminal complaint and entered into a compromise with the petitioner, settling the issue. In view of the same, they filed a Joint Compromise Memo, which is scanned and reproduced hereunder: __________ Page3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that, based on the complaint, an FIR was registered, a charge sheet was filed, and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act. He further submitted that, although the parties have entered into a compromise in respect of the case, this Court, considering the seriousness of the offence alleged, must examine whether offences of such a nature can be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between parties. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves. 7.The petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective counsel. __________ Page7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 8.On interaction by this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant stated that she has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and she is not willing to pursue the criminal proceedings and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

9.The main issue that requires for consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if they get settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court. __________ Page8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026

10.In the present case, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and quashing the proceedings will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022. 11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.The affidavits and the Joint compromise Memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. 15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS __________ Page9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 To 1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore 2.The Station House Officer AWPS, Cuddalore District. Cr. No. 27/2020 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. __________ Page10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. PVS CRL OP No. 15021 of 2026 15-06-2026 __________ Page11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis