- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12357 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHEKAR A.B, S/O. LATE BAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT ANEMADUGU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. - 562 105. 2. SMT. MANJULA, W/O. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.2, VENKATAGIRIKOTE, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. - 563 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DIBBURAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562105. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. XXXXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SRINATHA B.V, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN SPL.S.C. NO. 110/2023 (IN CRIME NO. 84/2023) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I (POCSO) AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN SPL.S.C NO.110/2023 (IN CR.NO.84/2023) FOR THE ALLEGED O/P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF THE IPC AND U/S 6 AND 8 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012 AND U/S 9, 10, 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the above named petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record on the file of the learned Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, At Chikkaballapura, in Spl. S.C. No. 110/2023 (in Crime No. 84/2023) and further be pleased to Quash the entire proceedings on the file of the learned Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC - I [POCSO], At Chikkaballapura, in Spl. S.C. No. 110/2023 (in Crime No.84/2023) for the alleged offences punishable Under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 6 and 8 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' and grant any such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri.Manjunatha A.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Srinitha B.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are accused No.1 and the victim. They are before the Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on the score of that they are married and are living happily. A certificate of marriage is appended to the petition. The marriage is said to have happened on 30-01-2023 and registered on 06-08-2025 after the victim has attained 18 years of age. 4. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit which reads as follows: "1. I swear that, I am the complainant and victim in the above case and I know the facts of the case, I am deposing to. 2. I swear that, on the basis of my complaint the 1st respondent herein has registered a case in Crime No.84/2023 for the offence punishable under section 376 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 6 and 8 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/accused and after investigating the case the 1st respondent police has filed a charge sheet before the learned Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I [POCSO], at Chikkaballapura against the Accused/Petitioner herein now pending on the file of the learned Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I [POCSO], at Chikkaballapura. 3. I swear that, during the curing of these proceedings, I have attained the age of majority and married to the 1st petitioner On 30.01.2023 and the same is registered on 06.08.2025. 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. 110/2023 (Crime No. 84/2023), 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 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and under section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 5. I swear that, I had filed this affidavit on my own and will and consent without compulsion or pressure from any one. WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to affidavit may be taken on record and proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 110/2023 (Crime No. 84/2023), 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 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and under section 9, 10, 11 of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 registered by Respondent No.1 Dibburahalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura District may be quash, in the interest of justice. I, the deponent do hereby verify and declare that what is stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief." 5. The parties to the lis are present before the Court and are identified by their respective counsels. 6. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,1 has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 3. The second respondent is the first informant at whose instance, a First Information Report was registered on 18th September, 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). The third respondent is the victim of the offence. As can be seen from the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), the alleged incident is of September, 2016. In the FIR, the second respondent has alleged that the age of the victim was 17 years. 4. Our attention was invited to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub-Registrar, Varanasi which records that the marriage between the appellant and third respondent has been solemnized on 5th December, 2016. The date of birth of the third respondent - victim is shown 12025 SCC OnLine SC 614 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 therein as 20th July, 1998. It is also brought on record that from the wedlock between the appellant and the third respondent, two children have been born whose documents have been produced along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10906 of 2025. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. A little earlier to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL quoted supra, the High Court of Kerala, in the case of XX XX v. STATE OF KERALA2, considers an identical circumstance and holds 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 22025 SCC OnLine Ker 2295 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 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. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 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: (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. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 (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) 8. Following the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala, and in the light of the marriage between the two, I deem it appropriate to accept the marriage certificate of petitioner No.1 and the victim and obliterate the crime with a rider that in the event, the petitioner-accused No.1 leaves the victim in lurch, the impugned proceedings under the POCSO Act that is now terminated, will get automatically revived. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30593 CRL.P No. 12357 of 2025 9. With the aforesaid observations, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] Proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.110/2023 (in Crime No. 84/2023) pending before the Addl., District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 9, 10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, qua the petitioners stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 49