- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12664 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI ASHOKA S/O. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 2. SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA S/O. LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA W/O. G. SREERAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5. SRI. SREERAMAPPA @ JALAUNDA SREERAMAPPA S/O. CHINNA MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS THE PETITIONER NO. 4 & 5 ARE R/AT PAIPALLI VILLAGE D. PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 206. AND ALSO R/AT NO. 6-22, OBULAPURAM CHOLASAMUDRAM ANANTAPUR DISTRICT Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 ANDHRA PRADESH-515 331. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. XXXXXX (VICTIM) XXXXXX XXXXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SRINATHA B V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING THAT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDL., DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I [POCSO], AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN SPL. S.C. NO. 48/2024 (IN CRIME NO.270/2023) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 (2)(n) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTION 5(J)(II) OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 9, 10, 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48/2024, pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Sections 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the score that the petitioner – accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - victim are married. 2. Heard Sri Manjunath A.C., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Srinatha B.V., learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: A crime comes to be registered against the petitioners in Crime No.270/2023, for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Sections 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, by a doctor who treated the victim, who had visited the hospital on some health issues. At the relevant point in time, respondent No.2 - victim was 16 ½ years. The petitioner and respondent No.2 though married, registered their marriage on 22.07.2025. The crime comes come to be registered only on the fact that the victim was conceived when she was less than 18 years. 4. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. The parties to the lis have filed an application – I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 359 of the BNSS, 2023 and an affidavit of respondent No.2 before this Court in this regard. 5. In the light of the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has already taken place and the parties have filed the application seeking permission to compound the offences, I deem it appropriate to accept the application and the affidavit and obliterate the crime registered against the petitioners only insofar as the offences under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are concerned. The affidavit of respondent No.2 – victim reads as follows: “3. I swear that, during the curing of these proceedings, I have attained the age of majority and married to the petitioner On.09.02.2025 and the same is registered on. 22.07.2025. Further, I swear that, in view of Intervention of elder and well wishers of our respective family members. We settled our disputes in presence of respective well wishers in out of court, in view of the said settlement. I am not interested to prosecute the above said case. As such, the said case filed by me may be quashed. 4. I swear that, in order to preserve the precious time of the trail court this affidavit is filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No.48/2024 (Crime No. 270/2023), pending before the learned Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I [POCSO], At Chikkaballapura for the offence punishable under offences punishable Under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(J) (II) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and under section 9, 10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 5. I swear that, I had filed this affidavit on my own consent without compulsion or pressure from any one.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 6. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 1 has held as follows: "5. On the last date, we had directed learned counsel appearing for the State to get the marriage certificate relied upon by the parties duly verified. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by Dr. Atul Tripathi, ACP, Sarnath in which it is stated that the marriage certificate has been verified and it is found to be genuine and in fact a true copy thereof has been produced along with the affidavit. 6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’, the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major. 7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children. 8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for 1 [2025 SCC Online SC 614] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court. 9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016 registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed." (Emphasis supplied) Later, the High Court of Kerala in the case of STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 2295, has held as follows: “24. Having extensively referred to the above views of the various High Courts, I am only inclined to follow the views of this Court in Vishnu case4, as also, of the various High Courts, where the proceedings were quashed taking stock of the settlement between the parties, ultimately ending in the marriage between the petitioner-accused and the de facto complainant/victim. I am of the opinion that, merely because the offences under the POCSO Act is alleged, there cannot be an absolute proposition of law that the proceedings cannot be quashed based on settlement between the parties, especially when the settlement is genuine and bona fide so as to ultimately result in the marriage between the accused and the victim. As held in many cases, each case will have to be addressed in the peculiar facts obtaining therein and there cannot be an en bloc conclusion that the quashment is wholly impermissible in cases involving POCSO offences. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 There are offences which are not of a very serious and grievous nature coming under the POCSO Act, say, for example, an offence under Sections 11(i) or (iv) of the Act. By saying that the said offences are less serious, this Court is not undermining the significance and seriousness of such offences, since it is perpetrated against a minor. However, when the legal position, even in respect of an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code, is to the effect that the same can be quashed based upon genuine and bona fide settlement between the parties, there is no reason as to why a less serious offence under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated. Generally, serious offences having a sexual overtone, like rape under the Penal Code and a penetrative sexual assault, etc. under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated by quashing the same, acting only upon the settlement between the parties. It is indeed the offence against the society and not a private issue between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating circumstances, adherence to that rule will work out injustice. Suffice to say that the choice in this regard will have to be taken based on the attendant facts; and not on the basis of the nomenclature of the statute. 25. Coming to the instant facts, in both the cases, the petitioner-accused had married the victim. Affidavits sworn to by the victims and their statements recorded by the investigating officer would reveal that they are living a happy married life, along with their child. The petitioner-accused is adequately taking care of the interest of the victim. In one case, the victim is sent for further studies and the child is being taken care of by the petitioner- accused. This Court is of the opinion that these circumstances are extremely extenuating, so as to bring the case outside the scope of the general proposition that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed, acting only upon the settlement between the parties. 26. The following aspects assume significance in the peculiar nature of the cases, where the offence is followed by the marriage between the perpetrator and the victim: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 (1) Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated by quashing the same, there will be utter chaos, confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim who married the accused and who is leading a happy life. In other words, the life of the victim, the accused and the child, if any, in that relationship will be ruined. Per contra, if the offence is quashed, it will bring in harmony, peace and happiness, thus promoting their family life. (2) Unless, the court choose to quash the proceedings, the trauma/agony of the child/victim continues, despite a genuine and bona fide settlement. (3) Despite and dehors a bona fide and genuine settlement culminating in the marriage between the petitioner-accused and the victim, if the criminal proceedings are to continue thereby compelling the parties to face the trial the same verge upon abuse of process. (4) The ends of justice is in favour of quashment in such category of cases, since it will be an injustice to separate a well knit family by the continuance of the proceedings. (5) Quashment of the proceedings will result in rendering total and complete justice to the parties. (6) When the crucial witness is the victim, who had married the accused, there exists little chance for her to speak against her own husband/accused, wherefore, the chances of conviction will be too bleak and remote. In other words, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuance of the proceedings. (7) Compelling the continuance of a proceedings, which is otherwise settled genuinely and which answers the requirements of the interest of justice will only add to the burden of criminal courts in India, which is otherwise overburdened.” (Emphasis supplied) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala and that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 - victim has taken place before the registration of the crime, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime, with a rider that in the event, petitioner No.1 would leave the lady in lurch, impugned proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48/2024 (Crime No.270/2023) would get revived. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R a. The criminal petition and I.A.No.1/2025 are allowed in-part. b. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48/2024 for the offences, qua petitioner No.1 - accused No.1, under Section 376(2)(n) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, stands quashed on account of the observations made in the course of the order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8672 CRL.P No. 12664 of 2025 c. The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.48/2024 for the offences, qua petitioner Nos.2 to 5 - accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 376(2)(n) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, stands quashed on account of the observations made in the course of the order. d. It is made clear that the offences under the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 qua petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – accused Nos.2 to 5 is not interfered with and therefore, shall continue. e. It is made clear that if the complainant-victim is left in the lurch by petitioner No.1, the impugned proceedings, which has now been obliterated on account of the quashment, would get revived. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69