- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103865 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI SANTOSH BASAPPA GANAGI, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE FIRM, R/O. TIGADOLLI VILLAGE, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591 115. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI KITTUR POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. 2. XXX … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. KAVITA K. RATHOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE-SHEET DATED 19/10/2024 IN CRIME NO.165/2024 REGISTERED BY KITTUR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(N), 506 IPC AND R/W SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1 BELAGAVI IN SPL. C. NO.647/2024 IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. C. NO.647/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 JUDGE FTSC-1 BELAGAVI, REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(N), 506 IPC AND R/W SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/SOLE IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.647/2024 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.165/2024 registered by Kittur Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of well-wishers, elders and parents of the petitioner and the victim girl. The petitioner has now married the victim girl - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 after she attained the age of majority. The date of birth of the victim girl is 27.02.2007 and marriage of the petitioner with victim girl was solemnized on 14.04.2025. Petitioner and the victim girl are now residing together and are living as husband and wife. Pendency of this criminal case has been causing untold hardship to the newly wedded couple and also to their family members. Therefore, they have decided to give quietus to the dispute between the parties and live peacefully in future. It is under these circumstances, this petition is filed and the parties have come forward to report settlement before this Court by filing an application under Section 359 read with 528 of BNSS, 2023, which is supported by the affidavit of petitioner, respondent No.2, victim girl as well as her parents. 4. They submit that settlement between the parties is voluntary without therebeing any undue influence or coercion. Petitioner, victim girl, her parents and the first informant, who is the maternal aunt of the victim girl are present in-person before the Court. They have been identified by their respective Advocates. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 5. In the application filed by the parties seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged offences for which petitioner has been charge sheeted, in paragraph Nos.2 to 4, it is stated as follows:- “2. It is pertinent to note, that with the intervention of the elders of both the families and the parents the Accused/petitioner and the victim girl both are married and living happily together. And now the present petitioner and the victim have settled and that allowing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner possibly may not get him convicted for the alleged offences. 3. The complainant and the victim don’t want to precipitate the matter ahead, as the accused and victim are happily married and want to lead a peaceful life. 4. As per the dictum of the case decided by Honble Apex Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab wherein it is held, when the offence is civil, where wrong is personal, and the matter is resolved between the parties consensually, proceedings can be quashed by the High Court. And so also, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings where the conviction is not possible and the parties are ready to settle the case amongst themselves even if the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 offence did not fall under compoundable offences. Therefore in view of the said dictum it is humbly prayed to allow the parties to compound the offences and close the pending criminal case which is impugned in the present criminal petition.” 6. Along with the application, in addition to the affidavit of the parties, the adhaar card of the parties, are also produced. The marriage invitation card of the petitioner with the victim girl and their marriage photographs are produced separately. 7. Learned HCGP however has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has been charge sheeted for non-compoundable offences. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 offence cannot be prescribed. In the case of PARBATBHAI AAHIR Vs. 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 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 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 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". 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.” 5 2025 INSC 819 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 10. 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 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 compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 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. The High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in a case involving a non compoundable offence is required to take into consideration the nature of allegations and also the nature of settlement between the parties. In the present case, allegations against the petitioner are private in nature. Families of the petitioner and the victim girl, who are all residing in the same village, have now settled dispute between them and the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl has been solemnized, after she had attained the age of majority. It is submitted before this Court that pendency of this case has been causing untold hardship to the newly married couple and also to their family members and therefore, they intend to give a quietus to inter se dispute and live peacefully in future. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that in order to do complete justice to the parties, the prayer made in this petition needs to be granted. Accordingly, the following order:- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12729 CRL.P No. 103865 of 2025 13. The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Special Case No.647/2024 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.165/2024 registered by Kittur Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP, DN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3