Allowed

Latchumanan Alias Lakshmanan v. State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2026CRL OP/6770/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing trial for kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault under POCSO after marrying a minor victim sought quashing. The court found the victim now an adult, married to the petitioner and pregnant, both parties unwilling to proceed, and relying on precedent quashed the proceedings as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; trial in Special S.C.No.63 of 2025 quashed against petitioner; connected Crl.M.P.No.4940 of 2026 closed.

Latchumanan Alias Lakshmanan Vs State Rep. by… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.4940 of 2026

¶7

Latchumanan @ Lakshmanan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry District. Cr.No.94/2025.

2.Vanitha

3.Vijayadharshini

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

¶15

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in connection with

¶16

final report in SPL.S.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Special Court for exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act at Puducherry and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raji For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

Page No.1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in Special S.C.No.63 of 2025 for offence under Section 87 of BNS and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Special Court for exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act at Puducherry, has filed this Criminal Original Petition.

¶23

2.Case of the prosecution is that the 2 nd respondent has two female daughters, elder daughter was studying at Tagore Arts College, Puducherry and younger daughter/3rd respondent was studying 12^th std at Thanthai Periyar Higher Secondary School, Ariyankuppam and has written the public examination in March 2025. In this situation, on 06.05.2025 the 3^rd respondent/victim informed her mother/2^nd respondent that she had to go to school to register the mark sheet in Digi Locker website and left. Since the 3^rd respondent was not returned back home, the 2^nd respondent contacted the 2^nd respondent’s friend and enquied who informed that the 2^nd respondent had left school at 12.00 p.m. itself. Despite search of the 2^nd respondent, she could not be traced. Hence, a complaint was lodged to the 1^st respondent

¶24

Page No.2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026 Police and a case in Crime No.94 of 2025 registered for offence under Section 137(2) of BNS. During investigation, it came to light that the petitioner induced the 2^nd respondent under the pretext of love. On 06.05.2025, when the 3^rd respondent went to school, the petitioner kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her parents with the intent to have illicit intercourse with her, took her to Thirupathi, Andhra Pradesh and then went to Tiruchendur on 09.05.2025 and tied Thali on her neck and brought her to his aunty’s house at Thazhuthali near Mailam and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court listing LW1 to LW17 and documents and Special S.C.No.63 of 2025 assigned.

¶27

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and

¶28

the 3^rd respondent were in love with each other and the 3 rd respondent only insisted the petitioner to marry her despite the petitioner’s resistance. The petitioner accompanied the 3 rd respondent only due to her insistence and compulsion since she threatened that she would end her life. Added to it, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that she is more than 18 years of age and attained majority. The petitioner having no other option had to marry the 3 rd respondent, and both got married on 09.05.2025 in Tiruchendur.

¶29

Page No.3 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026 Learned counsel further submitted that there was no force or compulsion by the petitioner to marry the 3 rd respondent. Since the 3 rd respondent was found to be a minor, a case registered against the petitioner.

¶32

4.Learned counsel further submitted that the 3 rd respondent attained

¶33

majority and the petitioner is now facing trial. Learned counsel further submitted that now the 3 rd respondent/victim is not inclined to proceed against the petitioner and that both the petitioner and 3 rd respondent are leading a happy married life. He further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent are registered in Joint Sub Registrar-II, Cuddalore and the 3 rd respondent is now two months pregnant. Hence, he prays for quashing.

¶34

5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent Police submitted that in this case, during the relevant period, the victim was a minor and her date of birth is 03.11.2007. To confirm the same, the birth certificate of the 3 rd respondent produced. Now the 3 rd respondent is two months pregnant. The 1 st respondent Police also enquired and found from the neighbours that they are living as husband and wife happily.

¶35

Page No.4 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026

¶38

6.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that today the petitioner, 2^nd & 3^rd respondents appeared before this Court, their identity is confirmed by Mr.J.Muruganandhan, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the 1^st respondent Police Station. During interaction in the Chamber, the 3^rd respondent/victim informed that she attained majority, both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent/victim are living as husband and wife and now the 3^rd respondent is two months pregnant. Further the marriage between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent registered on 17.12.2025 in Joint Sub Registrar Officer-II, Cuddalore. The respondent 2 & 3 informed that they are not inclined to proceed with the case and ready to withdraw the case and filed affidavit and joint compromise memo to that effect. The Apex Court in the case of “ K.Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1056 ”, considered the subsequent events and observed that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the petitioner as well as the victim. In view of the same, this Court finds that continuation of the proceedings will serve no purpose and it is only an abuse of process of law.

¶39

Page No.5 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.6770 of 2026

¶42

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a

¶43

sequel, the case in Special S.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Special Court for exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act at Puducherry is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

16.03.2026

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2

¶46

¶47