- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102576 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SANGAPPA GIRIYAL, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. ACCOUNTANT, R/O. BAILUR, TAL. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 115. 2. SANGAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA GIRIYAL, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAILUR, TAL. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 115. 3. SMT. PARAVVA W/O SANGAPPA GIRIYAL, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. BAILUR, TAL. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 115. 4. MAHANTESH S/O YALLAPPA GODALLI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVODAYA NAGAR, HANDUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 302. 5. SMT. SHARAVVA W/O MAHANTESH GODALLI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O NAVODAYA NAGAR, HANDUR, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 302. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KITTUR POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY SPP, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT: DHARWAD-08. 2. SMT. SAROJINI VEERABHADRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. LADY SUPERVISOR, R/O. BAILUR, TAL. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 115, NOW REP. BY SPP. 3. YALLAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA GODALLI, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 159/1, HUDED MADDI, TIGADOLLI, BELAGAVI-591 115. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED; SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) 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.C. NO.41/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I BELAGAVI (POCSO) AT: BELAGAVI IN CONNECTION WITH FIR CRIME NO.238/2024 DATED 14/12/2024 REGISTERED BY KITTUR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(N) R/W 34 OF IPC SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9, 10 AND 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.41 of 2025 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC- I, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.238/2024 registered by Kittur Police Station, Belagavi district for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 who is the grandfather of the victim girl, jointly submit that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of both parties. Accused No.1 and victim girl are married and they have a child from their wedlock. Pendency of the criminal case is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 causing serious hardship to the victim and her family members and also to the accused persons and they are not in a position to lead a normal life because of the pendency of the impugned proceedings. They have therefore decided to give quietus to the entire dispute. They submit that parties have filed application before this Court under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged offences and consequently to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. Learned HCGP however brings to the notice of this Court that charge sheet has been filed for non compoundable offences. 5. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNSS 2023, is signed by the petitioners as well as by the victim girl. The said application is also signed by the advocate appearing for the petitioners. Application is supported by the affidavit of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 the victim girl who is aged 19 years. The petitioners, the victim and her grandfather are present before the Court. The parties who are present before the Court are identified by their respective advocates. The application filed under Section 359 read with 528 of the BNSS 2023, which is supported by the affidavit of the victim girl, is taken on record. 6. In paragraph Nos.3 to 8 of the said application, it is stated as follows: “3. That the alleged incident is of 05/01/2024 and the complainant lodged a complaint before the Kittur P.S. registered in FIR Crime No.238/2024 dated 14/12/2024 for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) R/w 34 of IPC section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 4. It is submitted that the Investigation Officer has completed investigation and filed Charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 376(2)(n) R/w 34 of IPC section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the trial court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s 376(2)(n) R/w 34 of IPC section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 5. It is submitted that, the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the father of the alleged victim and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the alleged victim. 6. It is submitted that, on going through the Birth Certificate of the victim the date of birth is mentioned as 16/01/2006 which has been issued by the Tahsildar, Bailhongal and as on the date of marriage she was 17 years 11 months 19 days. 7. That the marriage of victim and the petitioner No.1 has been solemnized on 05/01/2024 and they both are living together under one roof. That the victim and the child are solely dependent on the petitioner No.1 to meet their daily needs. That if the petitioner No.1 is convicted after trial, it may result in further hardship and agony for the victim and the child. 8. That the petitioners have prayed to quash the proceedings in Spl. C. No.41/2025 pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO) At: Belagavi in connection with FIR Crime No.238/2024 dated 14/12/2024 registered by Kittur P.S. for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) R/w 34 of IPC section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9, 10 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against the petitioners/accused No. 1 to 5.” 7. In the affidavit of the victim girl, in paragraph No. 3 to 5, it is stated as follows: “3. I state that, the petitioner No.1 is my husband, petitioner No.2 is my father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is my mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is my father and petitioner No.5 is my mother. I state that our marriage has been solemnized on 05/01/2024 and we both are living together under one roof. 4. I state that, I have been read over and explained to me the contents of the application as well as the contents of this affidavit in the language I understand. 5. I state that, I have no-objection to the application filed by the petitioners and I have given free consent for the said application to be allowed and quash the entire proceedings in Spl. C. No.41/2025 pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO) At: Belagavi in connection with FIR Crime No. 238/2024 dated 14/12/2024 registered by Kittur P.S. for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) R/w 34 of IPC section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, against the petitioners/accused No. 1 to 5, in the interest of justice.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 8. The parties who are present before the Court, have stated that the settlement between the parties is voluntary, without having any undue influence and coercion. They also submit that pendency of this proceeding has been causing untold hardship to them and they are not in a position to lead normal family life. 9. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 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 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. 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 one at hand, where the adolescents have indulged in such acts due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx". 10. 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.” 11. 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 5 2025 INSC 819 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 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. 12. 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. 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 13. This Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in a case involving non compoundable offence, is required to take into consideration the gravity of the offences and also the nature of the allegations. Further, this Court also needs to take into consideration the relationship between the parties and the nature of settlement arrived at between them. The alleged offence in the present case is purely private in nature and husband of the victim, her in-laws as well as her parents are accused in the present case. From the wedlock between accused No.1 and the victim girl, a child is born and according to the parties pendency of this criminal case has been causing untold hardship to all the members of the family to lead normal family life. It is under these circumstances, parties have decided to give quietus to the dispute and live peacefully in future. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein this Court needs to exercise its inherent powers - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10748 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2025 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to do complete justice to all the parties. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings in Special Case No.41 of 2025 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.238/2024 registered by Kittur Police Station, Belagavi district for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act as against the petitioners is quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS, KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 79