Madras High Court
Abdul Majith @ Syed Abhudhagir vs State Represented By on 4 September, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9901 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9901 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.6739 and 6740 of 2024
1.Abdul Majith @ Syed Abhudhagir
2.Jabhar Sathik
3.Sarammal
4.Bhadhur Nisha ... Petitioners/A1 to A4
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Al Women Police Station,
Palani, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.21 of 2023)
2.Sugirtha Juli ,
Legal cum Probation Officer,
District Child Protection Unit,
Dindigul.
3.Safrin ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9901 of 2024
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
charge sheet filed in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Special
Court fo Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul and quash
the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
charge sheet filed in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Special
Court fo Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul and quash
the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner had
married the minor girl/third respondent. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.21
of 2023 and after investigation and filing of the final report, the same
was taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Special
Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, for the
offences under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006,
Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
first petitioner and the victim girl got married and the marriage came to
be registered on 28.08.2024 and they are having four months baby. He
would further submit that the victim was aged more than 17 years at the
time of alleged occurrence.
5. The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably
among themselves.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. A Joint Memo of Compromise, 16.07.2024 has been filed
before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the third
respondent and also by their respective counsels. The petitioners and the
third respondent are present before this Court and and they were
identified by Ms.M.Amutha, WSSI, All Women Police Station, Palani,
Dindigul, as well as by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the
parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
7. In the instant case, the dispute is of personal in nature and the
parties had compromised. Where the parties have compromised the
matter, the High Court has to power to quash the complaint for the
offence under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006,
Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
8. The legal position expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Panjab and another reported in
(2012)10 SCC 303 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of
Gujrath) reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 were taken into consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In the light of the guidelines issued in the above said
Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served
in keeping the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2024 as against the
petitioners pending on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of
Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, even though, the offences involved
are not compoundable in nature.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and
the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court
of Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, is quashed as
against the petitioners and the joint compromise memo, dated 16.07.2024
shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
04.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
To
1.The Special Judge of Exclusive Trial of Cases
under POCSO Act, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Al Women Police Station,
Palani, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Dated: 04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
