- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16411 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.THIPPARAJU S/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 561 208. 2. NARASIMHAPPA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR RALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 561 208. 3. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 561 208. 4. SRI. NAGAPPA, S/O UPPARA NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 R/A NALLA BHOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, TEKALEDI PANCHAYATI, HINDUPURA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 515 341. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NALLA BHOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, TEKALEDI PANCHAYATI, HINDUPURA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 515 341. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DEVENDRA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. VENKATEGOWDA.R.K, CDPO OFFICE, AGED 34 YEARS, NEAR GANESHA CYCLE MART, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 561 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR.M.V., HCGP) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.76/2022 LATER REGISTERED AS SPL.SC.NO.26/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 (POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC, U/S 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, U/S 9,10,11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, AT ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.76/2022 registered at Gowribidanur Rural Police Station, Chikkaballapura and the consequent proceedings pending in Spl.S.C.No.26/2024, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I (POCSO) Chikkaballapura. 2. Charge sheet is filed for the offence Punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 Act, 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 3. It is the case of prosecution that about one and half years prior, accused No.1, married the victim girl when she was a minor at one Sri. Lakshminarasimha Swamy temple, in Chilamatthur village, Hindupura Taluq, Andhara Pradesh and took her to his house at Nallabommanahalli, Hindupura Taluq and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. The allegations against accused Nos.2 to 5 are that, they being the parents of accused No.1 and the victim, have performed the child marriage and abetted the commission of offence by accused No.1. 4. Case was registered on a complaint lodged by the CDPO, Gowribidanuru, Chikkaballapura. The complaint appears to be on the basis of information received about the child marriages, performed within the jurisdiction of Hunasenahalli Village Panchayath, Gowribidanuru Taluq. The prosecution is relying on the school records of the victim girl, wherein, her date of birth is mentioned as 12.11.2006, to contend that she was a minor when her marriage was performed. According to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 prosecution, about one and half years prior, accused Nos.2 to 5 performed the marriage of minor victim with accused No.1. However, the prosecution has not placed convincing material to show that accused No.1 married the victim when she was a minor. 5. Petitioners and the victim girl are present before the Court. They have filed joint affidavits. It is stated that the victim girl has married accused No.1 on 25.12.2024, after attaining majority and the marriage is registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Marriages at Gowribidanur. A copy of the marriage certificate registered under the Hindu Marriage Act is produced at Annexure-E. 6. From the certificate of marriage, it is seen that the marriage was solemnized on 25.12.2024 and the same was registered on 04.11.2025. Victim in her affidavit, has stated that she attained majority on 12.11.2024 and married the petitioner No.1 on 25.12.2024 and they have been living together under the same roof. As per marriage certificate, victim has married petitioner No.1 on 25.12.2024, after attaining majority. It is stated that at the intervention of elders - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 and well-wishers of the respective family, the dispute has been settled out of the Court. Victim girl submits that she has no objection to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 7. It is 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 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.” 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) Entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.26/2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, (POCSO), Chikkaballapura, for the offences Punishable under Section, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53616 CRL.P No. 16411 of 2025 2012 and section 9, 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006, are quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91