- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103990 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAVI S/O CHANDRAPPA MULIMANI, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. GANJIGATTI VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-581 204. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PSI ALNAVAR POLICE STATION, CIRCLE DHARWAD RURAL CIRCLE, R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD-580 004. 2. XXXX VICTIM. (AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT THE VICTIM IS MINOR) SINCE REP. BY HER FATHER BY NAME THIPPANNA MAHADEVAPPA MANDAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUMBARKOPPA, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580 004. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(N), 376(3) OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 5(N), 5(I), 5(J)(II) PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012, FOR WHICH TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE AND ISSUED THE SUMMONS IN SPECIAL S.C. NO.60/2023 (CRIME NUMBER 59/2023 ALNAVAR POLICE STATION) BY THE SPECIAL COURT AND 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE DHARWAD AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. The accused in Special S.C. No.60 of 2023 pending before the Court of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, arising out of Crime No.59 of 2023 registered by Alnavar Police Station, Dharwad Rural Circle, Dharwad District, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Sections 5(n), 5(i), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of the elders and the well-wishers of both the parties. The marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 has been performed on 08.05.2025 after the victim girl has attained the age of majority. Even according to the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.11.2006. The petitioner and the victim girl are now residing together along with their child. Pendency of this criminal case has been causing untold hardship to the parties and their relatives to lead a normal happy life. Therefore, they have decided to give a quietus to the dispute and put an end to the pending litigation. They submit that the parties have filed an application before this Court under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to permit the parties to compound the offences. Accordingly, they prayed to allow the petition. 4. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for non- compoundable offences. 5. The petition filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner and also by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 affidavit of respondent No.2 and the victim girl. The parties who are present before this Court have been identified by their respective advocates. The petition is signed by the parties and by their respective learned advocates. 6. In paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the petition, it is stated as follows: “2) The Complainant who is an officer of women supervisor of Dharwad lodged a complaint before the respondent No 1 Police Station alleging that, the Kumbarkoppa Village is come under the purview of the Complainant Jurisdiction and as per the information received dated 07.01.2021 there is performing the child marriage (Victim Marriage) with Accused that is petitioner who is resident of Ganjigatti village, when this information was heard, immediately Child protection officer and Child development officer of Kalaghatagi officer were rushed to the spot and stop the marriage and meantime obtained the bond from the accused and his relatives. Further it is alleged in the complaint that, on 12.06.2023 the concerned officer of the Alnavar Primary Health Centre called to the CDPO office through the phone and meanwhile - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 informed that, one victim by name (x) was pregnant and she has been visited to the primary Health center for treatment. After that as per the direction the complainant was rushed to the victim house and verified the all the necessary papers and at the same time it was found that the victim age is 16 years, 7 months and she was pregnant for 9 months. Further it is alleged by the complainant in her complaint that, as per investigation, since one year back the victim was residing in the house of the petitioner at Ganjigatti village and she was taken treatment at Ganjigatti Primary health centre at Ganjigatti and also obtained the mother card from the said heath center and further it is alleged that, on 19.06.2023 the complainant has submitted the report of the same before the president of District Child Welfare Committee and its members for further action. Further it is alleged by the complaint in her complaint that, as per the statement of the victim age is 16 years and 09 months hence lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Further it is alleged by the complainant in her complaint that the victim was given the birth to the child dated 02.07.2023 at Alnavar Primary Health - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 Centre. Hence lodge the Complaint against the petitioner. 3) It is most respectfully submit for great consideration by this Hon'ble court is that, after the victim attain the age of the major willingly fully she has been agreed to marry the petitioner with free consent and her parents also agreed to marry the victim with the petitioner, as per the wishes of their family members both victim and Petitioner were married together on 08.05.2025 as per Hindu customs and rituals at Choudamma Temple, Ganjigatti of Kalaghatagi Taluka and both are leading a happy married life and with span of some days pursuance of the our marriage the victim was given a birth to the child and now the both are leading happy life and when this situation is exited without any force, coercion or inducement they were decided to compromise the case and not only this there is no enmity or grudge against each other. Now to maintain the peace and balance in the society and to be continued good cordial relationship the petitioner and the respondents so to settle the dispute once for all, we will lad happy life. hence the petitioner and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 respondents jointly submit the compromise petition.” 7. Learned counsel for the parties had produced material before this Court which would prima facie go to show that a child was born to the petitioner and the victim girl on 02.07.2023 and it is now submitted by the parties who are before this Court that the petitioner and the victim girl are residing with their family members along with the said child under the same roof. 8. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 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 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 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 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". 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF 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.” 10. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 2025 INSC 819 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 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 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. 11. 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 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and allegations are private in nature, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 12. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love, and after the victim girl was found to be pregnant, the Jurisdictional Child Development Project Officer had approached the Police and based on her first information, FIR was registered against the petitioner, who was subsequently charge-sheeted for the alleged offences. The child born to the petitioner and the victim girl is now aged two years and after the victim girl has attained the age of majority, her marriage with the petitioner has been performed by the parents and elders of both the parties and it is stated that the couple along with their child are residing together. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court needs to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13432 CRL.P No. 103990 of 2025 Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in order to do complete justice to the parties. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in Special S.C. No.60 of 2023 pending before the Court of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, arising out of Crime No.59 of 2023 registered by Alnavar Police Station, Dharwad Rural Circle, Dharwad District, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Sections 5(n), 5(i), 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act is quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 76