- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14818 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. UDAY KUMAR S. S/O SUBBA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT IRAGAMUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 2. SRI. SUBBA CHARI S/O LATE CHANGALARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT IRAGAMUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 3. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O SUBBA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, IRAGAMUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 4. SRI. NARESH S. S/O SUBBA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, IRAGAMUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESHA G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE BY SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. SHASHI KUMAR M. S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, REPT BY GUARDIAN, R/AT PATHANELAVANKI VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-560 131. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DEVARAMALLURU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA-562 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. NIREEKSHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAGAN RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR DATED 16.04.2024, IN CRIME NO.83/2024, REGISTERED BY THE SHIDLAGATTA RURAL POLICE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n), OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, AS WELL AS OFFENCES UNDER 6, 8 AND 12 AND SECTION 17 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9 AND 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT I (POCSO), CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.C.NO.94/2024, INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER The charge sheet is filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 6, 8, 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2016. 2. This petition is preferred seeking to quash the registration of the FIR and the consequent proceedings pending in Spl.C.No.94/2024 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 (POCSO), Chikkaballapura. 3. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 was in love with the victim/CW.2 and by inducing, kidnapped her on 15.04.2024 at about 1.00 p.m., on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-07-EG- 2545. Thereafter, on 21.04.2024 at about 03.00 a.m., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 married the minor victim in one Shri Prasanna Someshwara Swamy temple situated near Byrakur Village in Mulbagal Taluk and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby committed the charge sheeted offences. Accused Nos.2 to 4, the parents and brother of accused No.1 are alleged to have abetted him to commit the offence. 4. According to prosecution, the victim was a minor, aged about 17 years 5 months, her date of birth being 01.11.2006 as per school records. The victim was kidnapped by accused No.1 on 15.04.2024 and married her on 21.04.2024. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 alleged to have abetted the said offence committed by accused No.1. 5. The prosecution is relying on admission extract issued by the Govt. Higher Primary School, Devaramalluru, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, to prove the age of the victim. As per the said document, the date of birth of the victim is 01.11.2006. It is therefore, the case of prosecution that the victim was aged about 17 years 5 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 months at the time of incident. As could be seen, the said admission extract is issued on the basis of the victim's admission to 5th standard. No other document is forthcoming to establish the age of the victim. Petitioner's counsel has disputed the said document and the age of the victim. He contended that the victim was not a minor as alleged by the prosecution. 6. An application is filed to permit the parties to compound the offence on the ground that the matter has been settled. The application is accompanied with the affidavit of the victim. It is stated that the victim is major and she has married petitioner No.1 on 20.11.2024 and the marriage has been registered before the Registrar of Marriages on 12.12.2024. The certificate of registration of marriage is produced, wherein it is seen that the victim girl and petitioner No.1 was married on 20.11.2024 and the marriage has been registered on 12.12.2024. 7. The petitioners and the victim girl are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 learned counsel. Victim girl submits that she has married petitioner No.1 only after she attained majority and not prior to that as alleged by the prosecution. In the affidavit it is also stated that the victim has now given birth to a male child on 19.09.2025. and she is living along with petitioner No.1 and their son in harmony. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 9. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013(2) Crimes 90(SC), it is held by the Apex Court that ‘the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that, the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR. 10. It is also useful to refer to para 7 of the judgment in Madhukar and others v. State of Maharashtra and another arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7212/2025 “7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.” 11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not warranted, as no useful purpose would be served. It is expedient in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47798 CRL.P No. 14818 of 2025 ORDER The application is allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.94/2024 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Chikkaballapura are quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54