Murugan vs State And Others

M.Nirmal Kumar, J

The petitioner/accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.160 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, for the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS and Sections 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), filed this quash petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim in this case was studying School by staying in the petitioner’s house. The petitioner’s wife and the victim’s grandmother are sisters. The victim’s parents were staying in Moreh, Manipur, hence the petitioner is taking care of the victim as a guardian. The victim was very playful and she was particularly close with one Maths teacher, which was objected by the petitioner. Further, the victim wanted to attend the cultural programme which the petitioner refused. Thereafter, having grouse over the petitioner with regard to the petitioner keeping restriction on the victim’s movement, on the ill-advise of classmates and others, the victim lodged a complaint. The respondent police without considering these background had mechanically filed the final report in this case. Now the victim and her parents realized the mistake and came forward to withdraw the complaint.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim girl lodged a complaint, case registered and on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing 16 witnesses and documents. The victim in her complaint and also in her 164 statement reiterated about the petitioner making improper touch on her. He further submitted that the victim had some animosity against the petitioner since the petitioner is very strict and not allowed her to move freely and not allowed to participate in the cultural programme.

Today, the victim along with her mother is present before this Court. On interaction, the victim informed that due to restriction placed by the petitioner, she lodged a complaint and later informed her mother about the same. The victim’s mother, when enquired also informed that the victim unknowingly due to the anger of not allowed to live as per her wish, lodged a complaint. She further submitted that now the victim is being taken back to Moreh to continue her studies and they already settled in Moreh for generations.

The petitioner, the victim girl and the mother of the victim girl filed confirming affidavits individually and a joint compromise memo. In view of the same, this Court finds that continuation of the proceedings will serve no purpose, on the other hand it would only cause damage and affect the well being of the family.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the case in Spl.S.C.No.160 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur is hereby quashed.