- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103258 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRU S/O DEVAPPA DAMBAL, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/AT: DUNDUR, AMEDKAR ONI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111. 2. SMT. RAMJANBI W/O DAVALSAB NADAF, AGE. 36 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. DUNDUR, AMBEDKAR ONI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, GADAG, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. 2. YASMIN D/O IMAMSAB NADAF, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/AT: DUNDUR, AMBEDKAR ONI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HIRANKUMAR J. PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2/PETITIONERS AS IN GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.152/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(I), 113, 114, 506 OF IPC ALONG WITH 4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN S.C. NO.60/2021(POCSO), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.60/2021 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.152/2020 registered by Gadag Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012, are before this Court under Section 528 (482 of Cr.P.C.) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as against them in the aforesaid case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both the parties. The first petitioner has now married the respondent no.2, who is the victim in the present case, after she has attained the age of majority. From the wedlock, the couple have a child. They intend to give a quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore, they have filed a joint memo before this Court with a prayer to permit them to compound the alleged offences and consequently, quash the entire proceedings. They submit that in support of the joint memo, affidavit of respondent no.2-victim is also filed. They also submit that the settlement between the parties is voluntary without there being any undue influence, coercion or threat from anybody. Accordingly, they pray to allow the petition. 4. Learned HCGP, however, has brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged offences are non- confoundable in nature. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 5. The parties who are present before the Court are identified by their respective advocates. The joint memo and the affidavit of respondent no.2 filed in support of the joint memo is taken on record. The joint memo is signed by the parties and also by their respective advocates. In paragraph nos.1 to 3 of the joint memo, it is stated as follows: “1) That, the victim's mother herein is the complainant and respondent no: 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused on the false allegation on one or the other reasons before Gadag Rural Police Station in Crime No:152/2021 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC along with 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act 2012, pending on the files of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SC. No.60/2021(POCSO). The dispute as aroused between the petitioner no. 1 and victim has been amicably settled in view of their marriage. Now petitioner no. 1 and victim have compromised the matter amicably and are willing to set aside their differences and stay as husband and wife. Hence in view of the same the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 petitioner has filed this petition quashing the further proceeding. 2) The petitioner no. 1 and the victim having married now and the pending case is acting as hinderance to their marital life. The above case being personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offence alleged by the respondent no:2 against the petitioner herein the above-mentioned petition is filed. 3) The petitioner no.1 and victim being major want to live their lives as a married couple. Hence it is just and necessary to permit the petitioner and the victim to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial.” 6. In paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by respondent no.2 - victim in the present case, it is stated as follows: “4) I further state that, myself at the intervention of the well-wishers and the elderly members of both the side family members for my future life. I decided to put an end to the dispute between ourselves and accordingly arrived at a settlement of dispute and same is without their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 being any undue influence, coercion or threat from anybody and is out of my own free will and wish, I assure that I will not prosecute any other criminal cases nor the above case as same is personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offences alleged by me against the petitioner. 5) I also agree to give-up all their claims in respect of said cases as arouse in the dispute I further say that since the dispute between the petitioners and myself is settled amicably and I agree not to prosecute/contest the above- mentioned case against the petitioners/accused as the alleged incident is personal in nature. Hence it is just and necessary to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial.” 7. Parties have produced material before this Court to show that the first petitioner and respondent no.2 are now married. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the parties that from the wedlock, the couple have a child. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, 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. State reported in AIR Online 2022 KAR - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 314, 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 another (Crl.P. No.3710/2022 DD 09.09.2022) 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 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 knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx". 8. xxxxxxxxxxxx". 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh and Parbatbhai, 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 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 criminal proceedings registered now for non compoundable offence. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 has held that even in cases involving non - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and allegations are private in nature, inherent 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 offences and also the nature of offence. If the alleged offences are purely private in nature and if it is between the close family members and if a settlement is arrived between the parties who are close family members who intend to give a quietus to all the disputes, High Court can quash such criminal proceedings. The High Court is required to exercise such discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case surrounding the incident and also the background - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025 in which the settlement has been arrived between the parties having regard to the nature of the offences and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to do complete justice to the parties who are before this Court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in S.C. No.60/2021 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.152/2020 registered by Gadag Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby quashed against the petitioners. Sd/ (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB, CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 58