- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103900 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SACHIN @ HUVAPPA S/O. HANAMAGOUDA @ HANAMANTAGOUDA ANTARADANI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. BOMMASAGAR, TQ. GAJENDRAGADA, DIST. GADAG-582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K.KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RON POLICE STATION, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DIST. DHARWAD-580010. 2. SINCHANA W/O. SACHIN @ HUVAPPA ANTARADANI, AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BOMMASAGAR, TQ. GAJENDRAGADA, DIST. GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ABHISHEK G.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R2 (VK FILED)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN SPL.C.232/2024 (RON PS CRIME NO.103/2024) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC/ST ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 351(2), 137(2), 352, 64(M) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 6, 12, 17 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, GADAG AND ETC., Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) A joint compromise petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner and respondent No.2, stating that the petitioner has married the victim. Along with the compromise petition, they have produced the marriage certificate in support of their assertion. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another1, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.6 has held as under: “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 1 2025 INSC 819 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts to each case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.9 to 12 has held as under: “9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime 2 Criminal Appeal No.679/2024 (DD :- 28.10.2025) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself. 10. We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice. 11. Accordingly, resting on the foregoing considerations, the developments subsequent to the trial, and in the interest of rendering complete justice, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant including the conviction and sentence. Ordered accordingly. 12. Also, bearing in mind the interests of the appellant's wife and child, we deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default on the appellant's part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, and also on considering the marriage certificate produced by the parties, there is no embargo on this Court to record the settlement in order to secure the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER. i) The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition. ii) The entire proceedings in Special Case No.232/2024 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadag, in hereby quashed. iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 351(2), 352, 64(M) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17223 CRL.P No. 103900 of 2025 2015) and Sections 6, 12 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. iii) The bail bonds executed against the petitioner stands cancelled. iv) In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.As, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMM/CT: UMD List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8