Allowed

Shanmugam v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Aug 2023CRL OP/17453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed criminal proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Despite the offences being non-compoundable, the Court allowed the quashing petition as the victim girl was a major, had married the accused willingly, and the families had amicably agreed to settle the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in PRC No.04 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District quashed.

Shanmugam Vs Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶7

1.Shanmugam S/o.Arumugam

¶8

2.Saraswathi

¶9

W/o.Shanmugam

¶10

3.Rajendren S/o.Mani

¶11

4.Senthamarai W/o.Rajendran

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

vs.

¶14

1.The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District. Crime No.04 of 2021

¶15

2.G.Anbazhagi

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for records and quash PRC No.04 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District as against the petitioners herein.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/4

¶20

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Padmanabhan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶23

Government Advocate [Crl.side][R1]

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶27

proceedings in PRC No.04 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District.

¶28

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.

¶29

The proceedings are pending against the accused persons for offences u/s.9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. A compromise affidavit has been filed by the second respondent/ de facto complainant before this Court. The petitioners and second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Ms.A.L.Manimekalai, Woman Head Constable 323, Sethiyathope All Women Police Station [94981 54590]. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in PRC No.04

¶30

of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District.

¶31

This Court also enquired both the parties. The victim girl Ranjini was

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

2/4

¶34

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶35

present before this Court. She stated that her date of birth is 05.03.2005 and that she has married Rayappan and she is now living happily with him. The petitioners 1 and 2 are her in-laws and respondents 3 and 4 are her parents.

¶36

In view of the fact that the girl has married her uncle's son and both the families have agreed to the said marriage and the girl has also become a major and is living with A1, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

¶37

2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10 , this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the case in PRC No.04 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/4

¶40

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶41

¶42

N. ANAND VENKATESH., J

¶43

This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in PRC No.04 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District is quashed and the terms of affidavit shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶44

07.08.2023

¶45

Index : Yes/No

¶46

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral citation : Yes/No gm

¶47

¶48

1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Chidambaram District.

¶49

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District. Crime No.04 of 2021

¶50

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶51

Crl.O.P No.17453 of 2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

4/4

Shanmugam v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmugam v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureshkumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sathishkumar Vs State Rep by

Subhash Chandra Bhargava Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Ganesan Vs Robert Inkarsal

Vellingiri Vs Inspector of Police

Ragupathi Vs the Inspector of Police