- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16336 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRATHAP.S S/O. SRINIVASA REDDY @ SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT C/O. PEDDAMMA BUILDING, NEAR GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL, DODDA TOGURU, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-1, BENGALURU - 560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.76, GAYATHRI ANAND BUILDING, H.NO.5, 2ND CROSS, TECK CITY LAYOUT, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, DODDATHOGUR, BENGALURU - 560 100. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. NAYANASHREE A.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.NO.643/2025 DTD 23.08.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, AT BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.239/2025 OF ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 329(4), 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(m) OF BNS, U/S 4, 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 23.08.2025 taking cognizance of the offence by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-II, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.643/2025 arising out of Crime No.239/2025 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru City. 2. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 4, 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012) and Section 64(2)(m), 65(1), 137(2), 329(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS 2023'). 3. Petitioner is accused of committing sexual assault on a minor victim, respondent No.3 herein. According to the prosecution, the victim's date of birth is 30.07.2007 and the incident took place between 01.04.2025 and 16.06.2025. The prosecution has relied on the school records in proof of victim's date of birth. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 4. The victim was aged about 17 years 8 months, if her date of birth as per the school records is taken in to consideration and therefore, she was four months short of attaining majority at the time of commission of the alleged offence. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the date of birth mentioned in the school records and contended that there is no authentic and acceptable documents placed by the prosecution to prove the age of the victim. 5. An application is filed under Section 482 read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 and 359 of BNSS, 2023, by the petitioner as well as the victim/respondent No.3 seeking to quash the charge sheet on the ground of settlement. It is stated in the application that the victim has not made any allegation against the petitioner and not lodged any complaint against him. It is further stated that victim has married the petitioner on 24.09.2025 as per Hindu Customs and the marriage has been registered before the Registrar of Marriages at Bagepalli and now she is residing along with the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 6. The application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner as well as the victim/respondent No.3, now a major. A copy of the marriage registration certificate is also enclosed, wherein, it is seen that the marriage of respondent No.3 with the petitioner was registered on 02.12.2025. 7. Para-1 to 3 of the affidavit filed by respondent No.3/victim are extracted hereunder: 1. I state that I am the Respondent No.3 in the above said case. Victim girl in the above said case. The respondent police have Filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.239/2025, for the offence punishable under section 329(4), 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS Act and Section 4, 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act 2. I state that i and the petitioner have settled the dispute out of the court, we and Petitioner agreed for compromise. I have agreed to withdraw the complainant filed against the petitioner. in Spl.C.No.643/2025, Dated:23/08/2025 on the file of the Additional District &Sessions Judge-Fast Track Special Court-ll at Bangalore, arising out of crime No.239/2025 of Electronic City Police, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under section 329(4), 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS Act and U/s 4, 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act. Respondent No.3 is not interested in prosecute the case against the petitioner. 3. I state that I have no objection to allow the criminal Petition and to quash the Charge Sheet against the petitioner in the above said case. I filed the application for compromise without any pressure, force, compulsion i agreed for the compromise. Petitioner also agreed for the same. Hence I and the Petitioner have filed this application before this Hon'ble court for compromise. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhukar & Ors vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr in SLP(Crl.)No.7212/2025, in a similar situation, has quashed the proceedings. It is held therein, that: “7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious 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.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50773 CRL.P No. 16336 of 2025 9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the affidavit filed by the victim and the fact that she is now married and living with the petitioner, it is just and proper, in the interest of justice, to quash the proceedings, exercising the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed; (ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.643/2025 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-II, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.239/2025 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru City, are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29