- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:573 CRL.P No. 102494 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102494 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SAYYED USMAN S/O. SAYYEDMOHIDDIN INAMADAR AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, R/O. JAMIYA MASJID, KURATTIPET, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582102. 2. HUSAINSAB S/O. NABISAB HOSMANI AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER, R/O. JAMIYA MASJID, KURATTIPET, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BETAGERI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED 06.06.2022 IN CC NO.626/2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 10 AND 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 ARE CONCERNED, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.17 16:32:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:573 CRL.P No. 102494 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, accused Nos. 4 and 5, are sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are the President and a Member of the Jamia Masjid, respectively, along with other accused persons, knowingly solemnized the marriage of a minor boy on 5.7.2021. The Police Inspector of Betageri registered an FIR based on a complaint from one Manjunath Bammanakatti, President of the Child Welfare Committee, alleging that the petitioners, along with others, performed the marriage of a minor boy. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 4 and 5. Accused No. 4 is the President, and accused No. 5 is a Member of the Jamia Masjid. There is no specific allegation that the petitioners, along with others, were directly involved in performing or facilitating the marriage of the minor boy. In the absence of a specific allegation that the petitioners, fully aware of the boy’s minority, participated in solemnizing his marriage, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:573 CRL.P No. 102494 of 2022 petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the said offences, as the essential elements required to constitute the offences are lacking. 5. Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 prescribes punishment for solemnizing a child marriage. It states that anyone who performs, conducts, directs, or abets a child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to two years. 6. Section 11 of the Act deals with punishment for promoting or permitting the solemnization of child marriages. It states that any person responsible for a child, including a parent, guardian, or member of an organization, who promotes, permits, or negligently fails to prevent the solemnization of a child marriage, including by attending or participating in it, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to two years. 7. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioners performed, directed, or abetted the child marriage in question. The charge sheet does not indicate any specific act by the petitioners that would constitute an offence under Sections 10 or 11 of the Act. Consequently, the essential elements required to establish the offences are conspicuously absent. 8. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:573 CRL.P No. 102494 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.626/2022 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC II, Gadag, insofar as the petitioners – accused Nos.4 and 5 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39