- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477072021 NC: 2026:KHC:39535 CRL.P No. 9850 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9850 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. GANGAMAREGOWDA S/O B.K. HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS DDPI, RAMANAGAR DISRICT PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO. 152, 7TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY NEAR DAYANAND SAGAR COLLEGE J.P NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 78. 2. MARIGOWDA S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BEO, RAMANAGAR TALUK PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SUCHIRA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT HOSAKOPPA CIRCLE MADDURU - 571 428. 3. SAMPATHKUMAR S/O SRINIVAS SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.1/57 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 96. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477072021 NC: 2026:KHC:39535 CRL.P No. 9850 of 2021 4. VENKATESH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABUT 45 YEARS R/O SUGGANAHALLI PANCHAYATH RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR - 59. 5. SIDDASHETTY S/O NAGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED HEAD MASTER KAGGALAHALLI GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL KAGGALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR - 59. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAMANAGAR WOMEN POLICE STATION RAMANAGAR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 01. 2. SMT. ANITHA S HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 59. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477072021 NC: 2026:KHC:39535 CRL.P No. 9850 of 2021 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGAR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 9(F), 9(L), 9(M), 21 OF POCSO ACT INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging entire proceedings in Special Case no.67/2019 on file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for offences punishable under Sections 9 (f), (l) & (m) and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), this petition is filed by accused no.2 to 6. 2. Sri P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that arraignment of petitioners was by filing a supplementary charge sheet on allegation that petitioners who were Officials in School, in which offence occurred, had failed to intimate incident either to jurisdictional Police or Special Juvenile Police Unit and thereby committed offence under - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477072021 NC: 2026:KHC:39535 CRL.P No. 9850 of 2021 Section 21 of POCSO Act. It is contended that said allegation would not sustain as medical certificate of accused no.1 issued by District Hospital, Ramanagara dated 16.03.2019 appended to petition would indicate that incident was within knowledge of Police, who had taken accused no.1 to hospital for medical examination. Same would indicate that petitioners were not at fault. 3. Learned counsel further relies on decision of High Court of Chhattisgarh, sitting at Bilaspur, in Writ Petition (Cr) no.8/2016 disposed of on 12.05.2016 in case of Kamal Prasad Patade v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., for proposition that initiation of proceedings under Section 21 of POCSO Act would not sustain unless offence is established against main accused. 4. On 22.07.2026, a direction was issued to learned High Court Government Pleader to verify Medical Certificate dated 16.03.2019 appended to petition. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Medical Certificate dated 16.03.2019 appended to petition is authentic. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477072021 NC: 2026:KHC:39535 CRL.P No. 9850 of 2021 This would indicate that incident occurring on 16.03.2019 was within knowledge of police, as accused was taken to hospital. 5. Besides above, ratio laid down by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Kamal Prasad Patade's case, referred to above, would also come into play. Unless offence is established against main accused, prosecution cannot be initiated against others for delay or negligence in reporting offence. Indisputably, guilt of main accused is not yet established, proceedings are still in progress. In view of above, present proceedings would be illegal. 6. Hence, Petition is allowed, proceedings in Special Case no.67/2019 on file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for offences punishable under Sections 9 (f), (l) & (m) and 21 of POCSO Act are accordingly quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE hnm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9