- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12430 OF 2025 BETWEEN: IRSHAD AHAMED S/O ALIJAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA 100 FEET ROAD, MANDYA NATIVE OF R/O VILLAGE LALPUR, POST KUNDA, TEHSIL JASPUR, LALPUR, PO KASHIPUR, DIST. UDHAM SINGH NAAR, UTTARAKHAND - 244 713. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MADHUMALATHI S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, KENGERI P.S., BENGALURU - 560 060, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. MANOMAYA S/O LATE MANKU BAHADDUR Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NO.502, BEML LAYOUT, 7TH STAGE, MYLASANDRA KENGERI, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA - 560 060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP OR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR NO.184/2025 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC V BENGALURU IN SPL.C NO.1090/2025 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) OF BNS 2023 AND U/S 4(2), 6 OF POCSO ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.C.No.1090/2025 arising out of Crime No.184/2025 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025 Kengeri Police Station, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC–V, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 49(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The ground urged by the petitioner is that both the victim and the victim’s mother, in their depositions before the Trial Court, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Placing reliance on their evidence, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings. 2. On careful consideration, this Court is of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Once the charge is framed and trial has commenced, the process of appreciation of evidence lies within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court. The fact that certain material witnesses, including the victim and her mother, have turned hostile or have not supported the case of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025 prosecution, by itself, cannot be made the basis for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to stifle the proceedings mid-way. Whether the prosecution has failed to establish the charges is a matter that must be decided by the Trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary. 3. To quash proceedings at this juncture merely because some key witnesses have not supported the case would amount to short-circuiting the criminal trial and substituting the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in law. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the case before the learned Sessions Court, particularly since the crucial witnesses have been not examined. The petitioner–accused is also expected to extend full cooperation for an early conclusion of the trial. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK