Shreenithi v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC24 Feb 2025CRL OP/29380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan, J., 24.02.2025) quashes POCSO trial in Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 (Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal) on the victim's own Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition; charges under Sections 9, 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 POCSO 2012 and Section 366 IPC from Cr.No.641 of 2019 (Erumapatty P.S.); accused was the minor victim's maternal uncle who married her; Joint Memo of Compromise produced; marriage and two children verified in Court; Section 164 statement showed voluntary marriage; further proceedings held futile and final report quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the final report/case in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, on the petition of the victim under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ¶41-42

Shreenithi Vs the State Rep by Its — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the final report/case in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, on the petition of the victim under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶41-42

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution case in Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 (Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal), charging offences under Sections 9, 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO, 2012 and Section 366 of IPC, should be quashed in view of the marriage of the petitioner/victim to the accused and the written compromise (Joint Memo) between them.

¶37

Court's answer

Considering the marriage of the petitioner/victim with the accused, the compromise entered into between the parties, and the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that she married the accused on her own volition and did not intend to give any complaint, further proceedings in Spl.SC No.56 of 2022 would be a futile exercise.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the final report/case in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, is quashed.

¶41-42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. BY THE VICTIM FOR QUASHING OF TRIAL — Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, arising from Cr.No.641 of 2019 (Erumapatty Police Station), charging offences under Sections 9, 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO, 2012 and Section 366 IPC — accused, the victim's maternal uncle, allegedly married the petitioner when she was 17 years old and committed penetrative sexual assault — parties subsequently entered into a compromise reduced to writing (Joint Memo of Compromise produced in Court) — identity of the parties verified in Court through Mrs.Thangam, Special Sub Inspector, Erumapatty Police Station — Court confirmed the subsisting marriage and that the couple are blessed with two children — Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement showed the victim married the accused on her own volition and did not intend to give any complaint — petitioner now aged 21 years — further proceedings held to be a futile exercise — final report in Spl.SC.No.56 of 2022 QUASHED. (Sunder Mohan, J.; dated 24.02.2025)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 24.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶7

Shreenithi ... Petitioner/victim

¶8

¶9

State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District. [Cr.No.641 of 2019] … 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Selvarani Extension Officer, Erumapatty Union, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District. … 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

Karthi @ Karthick … 3^rd Respondent/Accused

¶12

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.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Subash For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

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

¶15

1/8

¶16

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the accused/3rd respondent

¶20

was the maternal uncle of the victim; that he had married the petitioner/victim, when she was 17 years and committed penetrative sexual assault.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner/victim would submit that

¶22

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:

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶29

4/8

¶30

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

¶31

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶32

5/8

¶33

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

¶34

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶35

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.

¶36

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/3^rd respondent on her own volition and she did not intend to give any complaint. The petitioner is now aged 21 years.

¶37

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

¶38

6/8

¶39

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

¶40

CRL O.P. No.29380 of 2022

¶41

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

¶42

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal, is quashed.

¶43

24.02.2025