- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5389 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. MALLIKARJUN S, S/O SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT MIDDILU GRAMA, D.PALYA HOBLI, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-571206. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAY KUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANCHENAHALLI P S, CHIKKABALLAPURA. 2. KUM. VEDHASHREE S H, W/O MALLIKARJUN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT VENKATAPURA, CHOLURU MANDALAM, HINDUPURA TALUK, ANDRAPRADESH-515201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN CRIME NO.293/2025 AND SPL.C.NO.35/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 64(2)(m) OF BNS AND SEC.5(n),5(L),5(j),(II), 6 AND SEC.9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 REGISTERED BY THE MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION, ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “(a) Quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No. 293/2025 and SPL.C.No.35/2026 on the file of the IV Additional District and Session Judge Court, Chikkaballapura District for the offence punishable under Sections Sec 64(2) (m) of BNS, Section 5(n), 5(L), 5(J) (II), and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 registered by the Manchenahalli Police Station, allowing the above petition. (b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.Uday Kumar P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.S.R.Sreeprasad, learned counsel - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are accused 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 solemnized on 12-01-2026 and registered on 09.07.2026 after the victim has attained 18 years of age. The parties to the lis have settled the dispute amongst themselves and filed Joint Affidavit of Settlement in that regard on account of marriage between the two, which reads as follows: "1. The first of us is the petitioner and the 2nd of us is the respondent No.2 in the above case. We know the facts of the case. 2. We state that at the instance of the 2nd of us a criminal case was filed against the petitioner herein for the offenses punishable under section Sec 64(2) (m) of BNS, Section 5(n), 5(L), 5(J) (II), and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, registered by the Manchenahalli Police – 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the first informant- defacto complaint. 3. We state that at the instance of the elders and the well wishers of both family members of ourselves the matter is. We are married and leading a happily married life and continued to do so. The marriage is not disputed. The 2nd - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 of us has attained majority and residing at the matrimonial home. 4. It is reiterated that at the time of the alleged offence the 2nd of us was aged 17 years 11 months and now attained major. 5. The second of us is in 9th month of pregnancy. The date of delivery is fixed on 12.6.2026 and would like to compromise the matter for the welfare of herself and the child to be born out of my own free will, volition, and choice, without any fraud, coercion, threat, force, or undue influence from the first of us or any other person. The settlement entered by us is voluntary one. 6. The first of us undertakes that he will take care of the 2nd of us-2nd respondent 7. In view of the settlement/compromise, the second of us would not like to continue the prosecution against the petitioner-the 1st of us. Wherefore, we pray that this Hon'ble Court to record the terms of the compromise and dispose of the above matter by quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner in SPL.C.No.35/2026 on the file of the IV Additional District and Session Judge Court, Chikkaballapura District for the offence punishable under Sections Sec 64(2) (m) of BNS, Section 5(n), 5(L), 5(J) (II), and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 registered by the Manchenahalli Police Station, in the interest of justice.” 4. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,1has 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 12025 SCC OnLine SC 614 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 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 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. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Following the judgment of the Apex Court and in the light of the marriage between the two, I deem it appropriate to accept the Joint Affidavit of Settlement as quoted supra and obliterate the crime with a rider that if the accused-husband would leave the wife now married, in the lurch at any time, the impugned POCSO proceedings will spring back/revive. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010248932026 NC: 2026:KHC:36240 CRL.P No. 5389 of 2026 6. With the aforesaid observations, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is disposed. [II] Proceedings in Spl.C.No.35/2026 (Crime No. 293/2025 of Manchenahalli P.S.) on the file of IV Additional District and Session Judge Court, Chikkaballapura District, for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(n), 5(L), 5(J)(II), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006, qua the petitioner stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71