Saravanan vs State And Others

M.Nirmal Kumar, J

The petitioner/accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.128 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Thiruvannamalai for the offence under Sections 5(I), 5(j)(ii) and 6(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 64(2)(m) and 87 of BNS, filed this quash petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the victim, both got married and they were living as husband and wife. Now the victim attained majority. He would further submit that since the victim and the petitioner belong to two different religions, marriage could not be registered immediately though the petitioner claims that he married the victim in Vinayagar Temple at Tiruvannamalai and produced a photograph.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation completed and charge sheet filed. He would submit that marriage is not satisfactory and it appears to be only for the purpose of filing the quash application. He would further submit that if proper records are produced for the marriage, then the victim’s plea can be considered. He further submitted that when the victim was examined as witness before the Trial Court, she got into the witness box and submitted that she is not inclined to further proceed with the case and failed to depose against the petitioner and she further submitted that she intends to marry the petitioner.

Today, the victim is present before this Court and submitted that the petitioner and the victim got married but could not register the marriage immediately, hence sought some time to produce the marriage certificate.

Post the matter on 05.06.2026. The petitioner and the victim to produce the marriage certificate by then. Since the petitioner and the victim reiterate that they are married, this Court directs the Trial Court not to proceed with the trial and maintain status quo as on today, till such time.