- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103067 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: INDRESH S/O. RAMANNA EMMI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. INDRIGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 239. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.), R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SMT. DURUGAMMA W/O. AMBRESH, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. INDRIGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 236. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJ N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. S.C. POCSO (AC) NO.33/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I AT KOPPAL, IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.237/2021 REGISTERED IN MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 376 AND 342 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(W), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST ACT 2015 AND SECTION 5(J)(II), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused in Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.33/2021 pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge & FTSC-1, Koppal in Crime No.237/2021 registered by Munirabad Police Station, Koppal District for the offences punishable under Section 376, 342 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 5(J)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - defacto complainant jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. They submit that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail, on the advice of the well wishers and elders of both the families, marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl who was then a major was performed and from the wedlock the couple - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 now have two children. They submit that pendency of the criminal case has been causing hardship to the petitioner and the victim girl and they are not in a position to lead a normal family life. If it is under these circumstances they intend to give a quietus to the dispute. Therefore, they have approached this Court. 4. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged offences are uncompoundable in nature. 5. The private parties to the petition have filed an application under Section 320 R/w 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to permit them to compound the alleged offences. The said application is signed by the respective parties is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner and the affidavit of the defacto complainant who is the mother of the victim girl. 6. The petitioner, the first informant and the victim girl are present in person before the Court and they are identified by their respective advocates. The victim girl who is present before the Court has stated that, she is now married to the petitioner and from their wedlock two children are born to her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 and she is living a happy married life with the petitioner. In the affidavit of the first informant, who is the mother of the victim girl, in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 it is stated as follows:- 3. After filing of the complaint the police took up the investigation and arrested the petitioner / accused and filed charge sheet, after filing of the charge sheet the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court. 4. When this being the case that, after enlarged on bail as per the advice of elders, the petitioner has got marriage with victim and out of wedlock 2 children were born and now the victim and petitioner are leading happy marital life. Hence, for the said development the petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed this application”. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 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 hauling an under aged boy into the web of the provisions under the POCSO Act has clearly held that POCSO Act was 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 4 Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 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 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 5 2025 INSC 819 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 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. 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 6 AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 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 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. 12. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.33/2021 pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge & FTSC-1, Koppal in Crime No.237/2021 registered by Munirabad Police Station, Koppal District for the offences punishable under Section 376, 342 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294 CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025 Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 5(J)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby quashed as against the petitioner herein. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43