This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tutucorin.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2014 for the alleged offence punishable under
Section 366(A) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of POCSO Act(Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), 2012.
4. It is submitted that the second respondent and the third respondent are the relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the third respondent developed a love affair from childhood and both of them went away from home in order to marry. However, the third respondent was advised to be at her residence and listen to her parents advice. It was in these circumstances, the second respondent, being the mother of the third respondent also lodged a complaint before the first respondent police station, on 20.01.2014 and a case was registered as girl missing. Subsequently, the First Information Report in Crime No.18 of 2014 was altered and the petitioner was made a sole accused under
Section 366(A) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of POCSO Act(Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act). A Charge Sheet was filed and taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2014. Since the petitioner and the third respondent developed intimacy and the relationship was not accepted by the second respondent. The criminal case was proceeded, as if the petitioner kidnapped the third respondent for illegal gratification. However, the petitioner and the third respondent are living together as husband and wife and this fact is not in dispute.
5. The registration of the marriage also took place before the Sub Registrar of Marriages, Kayal Pattinam and the certificate was issued indicating that the marriage was solemnized. Though this fact is not verified by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) through the respondent police, having regard to the fact that the third respondent appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms about the relationship and the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to ignore the contention of the parties before this Court. The second respondent who is the defacto complainant and the mother of the third respondent also appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that she has accepted the marriage and the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise.
6. Considering the relationship, the statement of the third respondent before this Court is also recorded. The offence under which the petitioner is not compoundable. Taking into consideration the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, this Court is inclined to accept the compromise.
7. The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own free will and volition. The identity of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identity of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police.
8. Having regard to the statement and the facts which are not in dispute and in terms of the compromise, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending and the criminal proceedings pending before the lower Court can be quashed on the basis of the Compromise Memo. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Tuticorin, is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.
To The Inspector of Police, Eppothum Vendran Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
.