- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 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. 11286 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O SHAM RAJ R/AT KOTTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK – 562 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA S. G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARJAPURA POLICE STATION ANEKAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SMT. RADHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI A.C.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.195/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC III BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 376(2)(i)(n)(f) OF IPC AND SEC.5(l),6 OF POCSO ACT OF SARJAPUR POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Spl.C.No.195/2024, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), (f) and (n) of the IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The daughter of respondent No.2, was a minor aged 17 years at the relevant point in time, who had become a victim at the hands of the petitioner – accused. Therefore, the mother of the victim girl registered a complaint against the petitioner – - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 accused in Crime No.4/2024. The police after investigation, filed their charge sheet against the accused in Spl.C.No.195/2024. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 submits that during the pendency of the petition, the victim girl and the accused have got married and the marriage is registered on 17.03.2025. In this regard the parties to the lis have filed an application under Sections 320 r/w. 482 of the Cr.P.C., joint affidavit, affidavit of the victim girl and the photocopy of the marriage certificate, before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. They would submit that if the proceedings are continued, it would prejudice their married life. 4. The issue now would be, whether on account of marriage, the proceedings against the petitioner - accused could be quashed or otherwise. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 1 has held as follows: 1 [2025 SCC Online SC 614] - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 "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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 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) 5. The joint affidavit of the parties reads as follows: “5. We submit that victim has now attained majority, is fully competent to take decisions on her own, and is living happily with Deponent No.1 as his legally wedded wife. 6. We categorically submit that this affidavit is executed by Deponent No.2 out of her own free will, without any force, coercion, inducement, threat, or undue influence from Deponent No.1 or any other person. 7. We submit that Deponent No.2 has no grievance whatsoever against Deponent No.1 and does not wish to pursue or prosecute the criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.4/2024. 8. We submit that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, would cause irreparable hardship to both the deponent No.1 and the victim, and would seriously affect marital life and future prospects. 9. We submit that the dispute is purely personal in nature and the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. We submit that this Joint Affidavit is filed in support of the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Hon’ble Court seeking - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 quashing of Crime No.4/2024 and all further proceedings arising therefrom. We respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.195/2024 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC- III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i), (n) and (f) of IPC and Section 5(1), 6 of POCSO Act of Sarjapur Police Station, in the interest of justice and equity.” In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the marriage of the accused with the victim after the incident has solemnized on 05.03.2025, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings with a rider that in the event, the petitioner would leave the lady in lurch, the proceedings in Spl.C.No.195/2024 would get revived. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed. (ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.195/2024 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC III, Bengaluru, Rural District Bengaluru, stand quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9279 CRL.P No. 11286 of 2024 (iii) In the event the petitioner - accused would leave the victim in the lurch later, the impugned proceedings would spring back by its revival. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68 CT:SS