- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103499 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS) BETWEEN: AJAYAKUMAR @ AJAY S/O DEVENDRAPPA BHAJANTRI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: WELDING WORK, R/O HALIYAL ROAD, HOYSALA NAGAR, NOW AT JANATA PLOT, GAJENDRAGAD, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PADMAJA S. TADPATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GAJENDRAGAD POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. SMT. MANJUALA W/O CHANDRAKANT ABBIGERI. AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: TEA SHOP KEEPER, R/O JANATA PLOT, GAJENDRAGAD, TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. BASAVARAJ G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AT IN GAJENDRAGAD PS IN CRIME NO. 09/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, AT GADAG WHICH IS REGISTERED AS SC NO. 38/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 64(2) OF BNS-2023 AND SEC. 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT-2012 IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER 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:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 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) Petitioner in S.C. No.38/2025 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.9/2025 registered by Gajendragad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 64(2) of BNS 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012, is before this Court under Section 528 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 petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the parties. The petitioner and the victim girl, who were in love, have now got married on 27.07.2025 and they are living together - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 as husband and wife. Marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl has been registered before the Office of the Registrar of Marriages, Dharwad and marriage registration certificate is also enclosed along with the application filed by the parties seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged offences. They submit that pendency of the case has been causing hardship to the parties and their relatives and the newly married couple are not in a position to lead happy married life. Accordingly, they pray to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that charge sheet has been filed in the present case for non-compoundable offences. 5. The petitioner and the victim girl are present before the Court in person and they are identified by their respective advocates. Application filed by the parties, which is signed by the petitioner and respondent no.2 who is the mother of the victim girl and also by their learned advocates - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 is taken on record. Along with the said application, Adhar Card of the victim girl and also the certificate of registration of the marriage between petitioner and the victim girl is also enclosed. The same is taken on record. In paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the application, it is stated as follows: “6. At the intervention and advises of the elders and well-wishers and also as per the will and wish of the victim, the petitioner and victim were married on 27/07/2025. The Petitioner and Victim are now residing as husband and wife. Hence, to lead happy and peaceful marital life, the parties intended to close the dispute. 7. It is submitted that, in the present petition the Petitioner prayed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.09/2025 before Gajendragad PS which is registered as SC No.38/2025 pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, At: Gadag, for offences punishable under Section 64(2) of BNS-2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012.” 6. The parties who are before this Court have stated that dispute between the parties has been amicably - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 settled and the petitioner and the victim girl are married. The settlement between the parties is voluntary without there being any coercion or undue influence. 7. 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 limitations under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. A coordinate bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances in the case of MOHAMMAD WASEEM 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 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 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 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 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 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 5 2025 INSC 819 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 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 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 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, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 10. The High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving non-compoundable offence is required to take into consideration the gravity of offences and also the nature of allegations. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner made by the first informant and the victim girl are private in nature. The dispute between the parties has now been settled and during the pendency of the case before the trial Court, the petitioner has married the victim girl, after she attained the age of majority and from the wedlock the couple have two children. 11. The dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the intervention of the well wishers and elders of both 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11314 CRL.P No. 103499 of 2025 the family and therefore they intend to put an end to the dispute and live peacefully in future. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein this Court requires to exercise its inherent powers for the purpose of securing ends of justice. 7. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court needs to exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in S S.C. No.38/2025 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.9/2025 registered by Gajendragad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 64(2) of BNS 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB, CT:GSM