Mahendiran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2026 Latest Caselaw 748 Mad

Madras High Court

Mahendiran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2026

Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

                                                                                           Crl.O.P.No.3303 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 25.02.2026

                                                           CORAM:

                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                               Crl.O.P.No.3303 of 2026
                                             and Crl.M.P.No.2322 of 2026

                 Mahendiran                                                                ... Petitioner
                                                                Vs.

                 1.      The State of Tamil Nadu
                         Represented by,
                         The Inspector of Police,
                         Mathikonpalayam Police Station,
                         Dharmapuri District.
                         (Crime No.128 of 2022)
                 2.      Latha                                                             ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

                 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records

                 pertaining to the proceeding in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2023, pending on the file

                 of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri against the

                 petitioner and quash the same as illegal.



                                       For Petitioner        : Mr.T.Ganesan
                                       For R1                : Mr.S.Santhosh
                                                               Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
                                       For R2                   Ms.K.Padmapriya
                 1/11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )
                                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.3303 of 2026


                                                             ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to

quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2023, on the file of the Sessions

Court, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, on the basis of the

compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de facto

complainant/R2, a case in Crime No.128 of 2022 was registered on the file

of the first respondent Police for “Girl Missing” and later, it was altered to

one under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and Section 9 of the Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 5(1) r/w 6(1) of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of

investigation, the impugned charge sheet was filed before the Sessions

Court, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, and the Court took

cognizance of the case and numbered it as Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2023.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner are as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

4.1. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent’s daughter/victim

are known to each other and there was a consensual relationship between

them. Since their relationship was opposed by their parents, the victim, on

her own volition, went along with the petitioner. Consequently, based on the

complaint given by the second respondent, the mother of the victim, the

present case came to be registered.

4.2. While so, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a

female child on 17.02.2024. After the victim attained majority, the petitioner

and the victim got their marriage solemnized on 19.02.2026. As on date, the

petitioner and the victim are living together as husband and wife. Their

marriage has also been registered before the District Registrar’s Office,

Coimbatore, on 20.02.2026.

4.3. The parties have entered into a compromise. In view of

the settlement between the petitioner and the victim, no useful purpose

would be served by permitting the impugned proceedings to continue.

Hence, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of

compromise. Affidavits and Joint Memo of Compromise to that effect have

also been filed by the petitioner as well as the second respondent and the

victim.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

5. The petitioner and the victim, along with their child, appeared

before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel as

well as by Mr.C.Selvam, SSI, Mathikon Palayam Police Station,

Dharmapuri.

6. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied

that the petitioner and the victim have been living together as husband and

wife with their child.

7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on

behalf of the first respondent submitted that since the victim is a school

going girl, the de facto complainant/R2, the mother of the victim, did not

accept their marriage. He further submitted that though the parties have

entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into

account the seriousness of the offences, has to consider the issue as to

whether offences of this nature can be quashed on the ground of

compromise between parties.

8. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is

as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences pending against the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

9. The Supreme Court, in a very recent judgment in K.

Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 1272], in which the

appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 366 IPC and

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pursuant to the compromise entered into

between the parties, by commencing the judgment with the quote “The final

cause of law is the welfare of society” of Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and finding that

the crime was not the result of lust but love, quashed the proceedings

against the appellant invoking Section 142 of the Constitution of India. The

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:

“5. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the proceedings should be quashed in the present case, considering that the appellant is convicted of a heinous offence.

6. We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure not just

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order.

7. With such perspective in mind, we need to proceed to balance the competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

8. The founding fathers of the Constitution conferred this Court with the extraordinary power to do “complete justice” in proper cases. This constitutional power stands apart from all other powers and is intended to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law.

9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant’s wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.

10. We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.

11. Accordingly, resting on the foregoing considerations, the developments subsequent to the trial, and in the interest of rendering complete justice, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant including the conviction and sentence. Ordered accordingly.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

12. Also, bearing in mind the interests of the appellant’s wife and child, we deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default on the appellant’s part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.

13. We make the interim order granting benefit to the appellant of exemption from surrendering absolute and discharge him from the bail bonds.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

15. Needless to observe, this order is rendered in the unique circumstances that have unfolded before us and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.”

(emphasis supplied by this Court)

10. It is also apropos to point out that the Supreme Court, in

K.Dhandapani vs. The State [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477], in which the

appellant was convicted of the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the

POCSO Act, by a terse order, set aside the conviction and sentence slapped

on the appellant, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the

parties. The following relevant paragraphs of the said order make an

interesting reading:

“The appellant submitted that this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and ought to do complete justice and it could not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Court to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamil Nadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.

For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

In case, the appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move this Court for modification of this Order.”

(emphasis supplied by this Court)

11. Since the aforesaid decisions apply on all fours to the facts

and circumstances obtaining in this case, this Court is inclined to quash the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Sessions Court, Fast

Track, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2023, by invoking

Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2023, on

the file of the Sessions Court, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, is

quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13. The affidavits and the Joint Memo of Compromise filed by

the petitioner as well as the second respondent and victim for compromising

the offences shall form part of the records.

14. This Court hopes and trusts that the petitioner will take due

care of the victim and the child for the rest of their life and in the event of

any default on his part in this regard being brought to the notice of this

Court, the consequences that would befall the petitioner would be very

serious.

15. Before parting, this Court hastens to add that this Court is

not oblivious of the fact that the Supreme Court, in K. Kirubakaran, supra,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quashed the

criminal proceedings against the appellant. However, since the facts

obtaining in this case being akin to the facts in K. Kirubakaran, supra, this

order is passed.

25.02.2026 vm

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mathikonpalayam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vm

25.02.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )