- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102410 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHANTESH S/O RAJU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. GRAZING SHEEP, R/O. NAINGLAJ, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. PREMA W/O. YALLAPPA CHOORI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BAADWADI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. PALLAVI W/O MAHANTESH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAINGLAJ, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAHUL BHUSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.170/2022 ADDL. DISTRICT AND FTSC-I, BELAGAVI, (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.119/2022 SANKESHWAR P.S.) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(1), 376(2)(N), 368, 201, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THERE IN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused in Spl.C.No.170/2022 pending before the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, FTSC, Belgaum, arising out of Crime No.119/2022 registered by Sankeshwar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(1), 376(2)(N), 368, 201, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act is before this Court under Section 528 (482 of Cr.P.C.) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as against him in the aforesaid case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submits that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of the elders and relatives of the parties. Victim girl has now married the petitioner and from the wedlock, the couple have a child. The marriage of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 petitioner with the victim girl is registered before the Jurisdictional Office of Registrar of Marriages. 4. They submit that victim girl has filed an affidavit before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings impugned as against petitioner, who is her husband. Learned HCGP brings to the notice of this Court that impugned proceedings are registered for non- compoundable offences. The respondent no.2, who is the mother of the victim girl, has remained unrepresented before this Court. The petitioner and the victim girl along with their child are present before this Court. The parties who are before this Court are identified by their respective advocates. 5. The victim girl has filed an affidavit before this Court and the same is taken on record. In paragraph nos. 1 to 6 of the affidavit, it is stated as follows: “1. That I am the deponent herein and the alleged victim in the above-noted Criminal Petition. I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence competent to swear to this affidavit. The contents of this affidavit have been read over - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 and explained to me in Kannada language, which I fully understood, and thereafter I am voluntarily affirming the same. 2. That I state that the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 has preferred the present Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Special Case No.170/2022 (arising out of Crime No.119/2022), which have been initiated against him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 368, 201, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) insofar as they relate to Accused No. 1. 3. That I most respectfully submit that there was no element of force, coercion or inducement in my relationship with Accused No. 1. On the contrary, myself and Accused No. 1 developed mutual affection and love for each other over a period of time, and we voluntarily decided to get married. Our marriage was duly solemnized and registered under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act on 04.07.2025, at which point of time I was 18 years of age and the Accused No. 1 was 21 years and 5 months. 4. That pursuant to our marital relationship, a male child was born to us on 09.04.2024. The Marriage Registration Certificate as well as the Birth Certificate of the child are already produced before this Hon'ble Court along with the criminal petition, in proof of the fact that we are leading a legally wedded and stable family life. 5. That I state that at present I am happily married to Accused No. 1, and we are residing together as husband and wife. He has been taking care of me and our child with utmost affection and responsibility. There exists no grievance or complaint on my part against him. On the contrary, we both are leading a peaceful and contented married life and intend to continue the same in future. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 6. That in view of the above facts and circumstances, I have no objection whatsoever if this Hon'ble Court is pleased to allow the present Criminal Petition and quash the entire proceedings pending against my husband/Accused No. 1. Continuation of the proceedings would only cause unnecessary hardship to me, my husband, and our infant child, and it would not serve the ends of justice.” 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1 has held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and these powers can be exercised to quash the legal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where the parties have settled their dispute and for that purpose any definite category of offence cannot be prescribed. In the case of PARBATBHAI AAHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions outlined under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which means, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers independently notwithstanding the 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 limitations under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. A coordinate bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances in the case of MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD Vs. STATE3, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties after the accused and the victim got married and the victim had given birth to a child, has quashed the entire proceedings in the criminal case which was pending before the Special Court for similar offences. In the case of AARUSH JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER4, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows: "xxxxxxxxxxx It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the victim were close friends and were infatuated to each other. Several Courts as quoted hereinabove have considered the impact of hauling an under aged boy into the web of the provisions under the POCSO Act has clearly held that POCSO Act was not meant to punish the accused who were in love with the victims therein. 14. It is a known fact which bear consideration in the aforequoted judgments, in physiological parlance, that adolescence of a child is between 10 to 19 years 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 and young age is said to be between 20 to 24 years. Therefore, adolescence is a continuum of development process in the life of a child metamorphosing into young age or an adult. It would not be inapt to notice that young children or boys who have not yet reached the age of 18 years, many a time, without realizing or being ignorant of the consequences of their act which they perform in the frenzy of youth, emerge themselves as offenders under the provisions of POCSO Act and face serious consequences. Romantic love between a boy and a girl of the age of adolescence sometimes arising out of infatuations result in the boy embroiling himself into the vortex of the provisions of the POCSO Act. 15. The laudable object for which the POCSO Act was brought into effect cannot be forgotten, but that would not mean that it is meant to punish young children who would fall in love and commit such acts which would become punishable under the Act, a caveat, this Court is not painting every incidence of sexual activity of any kind that would become an offence under the POCSO Act, with the same brush, but there are cases of the kind, like the one at hand, where the adolescents have indulged in such acts due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx". 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.5 in paragraph No.6 has held as follows: “6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.” 8. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., however, considering the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of GIAN SINGH and PARBATBHAI (supra), that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings if this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal case is not in the interest of the parties and on the 5 2025 INSC 819 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 other hand ends of justice would be secured if the criminal proceedings is quashed, notwithstanding the fact that alleged offences are non-compoundable, still this Court in deserving cases can quash the entire proceedings. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH6, has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and allegations are private in nature, inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 10. In the present case, the petitioner and the victim girl are already married and from the wedlock, a child is born to them. The marriage certificate of the petitioner with the victim girl is also produced along with the petition and the birth certificate of the child born to them is also available on record. The parties have stated that at the intervention of the elders and the well wishers, the dispute has been settled and the impugned proceedings has been causing them untold hardship and they are not in a position to lead a normal family life. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a good case wherein this Court needs 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10662 CRL.P No. 102410 of 2025 to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in order to do complete justice to both the parties. 11. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.170/2022 pending before the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, FTSC, Belgaum, arising out of Crime No.119/2022 registered by Sankeshwar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(1), 376(2)(N), 368, 201, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act is quashed as against the petitioner. 8. Pending IA’s do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63