- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 97 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SHIVU KUMAR M S AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SATHISHA, KACHIKOPPA, KACHI KOPPA, PO: SIRIGERE, SHIMOGGA-577211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KUMSI POLICE STATION REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001 2. VICTIM (XXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX 3. XXXX XXXX Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 XXXX XXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. NAGARAJ M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ACJ (JR.DN) AND JMFC – 2, SHIVAMOGGA IN CR.NO.239/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 127(3), 64(2)(m), R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND 6, 17 OF POCSO ACT, KUMSI POLICE STATION. 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 – accused No.1 is 23 years old. He is now before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.239/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(3), 64(2)(m) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’ for short) and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the POCSO Act’ for short) on the score that the petitioner and the victim have got married. 2. The petitioner, as on the date of the incident, was 22 years old and the victim was 17 years and 11 months old. The incident happens on 08.11.2025. The petitioner is taken into custody. Later, the petitioner and the victim get married on 15.12.2025, and the petition appends to it a certificate of registration of marriage, which depicts that the marriage has taken place on 15.12.2025 and has been registered on 22.12.2025. The issue now would be whether on account of marriage, the proceedings against the accused No.1 could be quashed or otherwise. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. 2.1. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 has held as follows: “….. ….. ….. 1 2025 SCC Online SC 614 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 2.2. Prior 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: “….. ….. ….. 6. The quashment sought for under Section 482 CrPC on the strength of the settlement between the parties has always vexed the court and several landmark judgments have been rendered in this regard, including the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In Gian Singh case, it was held that the inherent power under Section 482 is not limited by Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the High Court can quash the proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, provided it serves the ends of justice. However, compounding of serious and heinous offences, which impact the society at large was frowned upon by the three-Judges Bench in Gian Singh case. The conclusions in Gian Singh case in para 61 are extracted herebelow: (Gian Singh case, SCC pp. 342-343, para 61) “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is 22025 SCC OnLine Ker 2295 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Recently, the Supreme Court examined the legal position as regards quashment of offences under the POCSO Act in Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193]. Frowning upon the quashment of offences under the POCSO Act based on the settlement between the parties, the Supreme Court held that in the nature of cases before the Supreme Court, the compromise between the parties, or the fact that there exists a remote and bleak chance of conviction, cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation by quashing the FIR and further proceedings thereto, by invoking the powers under Section 482 CrPC. The legal position in Gian Singh case that the powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash proceedings based on compromise, if it is in respect of heinous offences, which are not of a private nature and having serious impact on the society, is seen reiterated. However, it is relevant in this regard to take note of the factual premise based upon which the above dictum was laid down. In Ramji Lal Bairwa case, the attendant facts constituting the prosecution allegation is to the following effect: On 6-1-2022, the victim child, who was then a student of class XI in Higher Secondary, was alone in the classroom. The 3rd respondent, a teacher, came there and after ensuring that there is no one else in the classroom, he reached behind the victim, patted on her cheeks and put his hands inside her bodice and rubbed her breast. When the victim got up and ran away, the accused followed to stop her. Though the victim sought for help of other teachers, there was no positive response. In the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 meanwhile, one teacher came to the victim's residence and when her mother reached the school, she found the victim in a deadly, terrified and numbed state. The child was not in a position to say anything to her mother. Upon reaching home, she divulged the incident to the mother, pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. 8. Needless to say that the factual situation is quite different from the facts at hand. In Ramji Lal Bairwa case, a teacher had made sexual advancements to his pupil, constituting offences under the POCSO Act; whereas in the instant facts before me, there was a relationship between the petitioner and the accused, which led to physical relationship, followed by the marriage of the petitioner- accused and the de facto complainant/victim. 9. This Court will now address the views of the various High Courts in this regard. I will begin with the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine Ker 3357]. After making a thorough scan of all the precedents on the point, the learned Single Judge concluded that normally the High Court should not interfere with the investigation/criminal proceedings involving sexual offences against women and children, only on the ground of settlement. However, exercise of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is not completely foreclosed to quash such proceedings in extraordinary circumstances, to do complete justice to the parties. The learned Judge exhorts to take a rational view based on pros and cons being weighted, so as to identify fit cases for compromise. 10. In 2019, a learned Single Judge in Crl. MC No. 381 of 2018 quashed the proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the offences under the POCSO Act were also involved. The learned Single Judge found that, once the petitioner- accused and the victim had married each other, refusal to quash the criminal proceedings will detrimentally affect their family life, as also, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 balance and harmony achieved by the resolution of disputes. 11. A more or less similar view is seen taken by the Delhi High Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)5. In Amar Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)6, the Delhi High Court quashed all further proceedings in a case where the offences under the POCSO Act were alleged. There was a relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent in that case, as a consequence of which the 2nd respondent, who was a minor, became pregnant. In quashing the proceedings, the Delhi High Court found that the continuance of the proceedings would cause extreme injustice to the parties, besides there being remote possibility for any conviction. 12. A similar course was adopted by the Delhi High Court in Arjun Kamti v. State (NCT of Delhi)7. 13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajveer Singh v. State of Punjab8 quashed the proceedings taking stock of the compromise between the parties. The court found that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. The fact that the accused married the victim and that they are happily cohabiting was taken stock of. The denial of the prayer would be contrary to the interest of the petitioner and the victim, was the finding of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 14. In Vijayalakshmi v. State of T.N.9), the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings involving offences under the POCSO Act on the strength of the settlement between the accused and the victim, holding that, punishment of an adolescent boy for entering into a relationship with a girl below eighteen years of age was never the objective of the POCSO Act. 15. The Bombay High Court in Nauman Suleman Khan v. State of Maharashtraquashed the crime - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 involving the offence under the POCSO Act, taking note of the fact that the accused had married the victim girl, holding that the continuance of the prosecution would hamper the peaceful life of the parties. 16. The Delhi High Court in AK v. State (NCT of Delhi) held that the intention of the POCSO Act was not to criminalise consensual romantic relations. 17. In Vijaya Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)12, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR involving the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, holding that the 2nd respondent therein, a major at the time of settlement, wishes to stay with the petitioner as his wife, along with their minor child and unless the FIR is quashed, three lives will be ruined. 18. In Kamal v. State13, the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings under the POCSO Act when the victim girl, who was present in the court, stated that she had married the petitioner and had a child in that relationship. 19. The same is the course adopted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Sakshi v. State of H.P.14, wherein the High Court gave emphasis on the aspect that, if the settlement between the parties is to result in harmony between them, so as to improve their future relationship, the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. That was also a case where the marriage between the petitioner-accused and the victim was solemnised and a female child was born in that wedlock. 20. Relying upon the aforereferred judgments, the Orissa High Court in Rojalin Rout v. State of Odisha15, followed the same course, after noticing the fact that the parties are leading a happy married life. The fact that the possibility of securing a conviction is remote and that continuance of the proceedings may adversely affect the mental, emotional and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 educational well being of the victim, were taken stock of. The Orissa High Court held that the offence which created impediments for the victim and their families in the form of loss of reputation and dignity, have been substantially mitigated when the accused married the victim, which also has the effect of reforming the accused. 21. In Kajal v. State of H.P.16, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh also chose to quash the proceedings involving the offences under the POCSO Act, as also, the offences pertaining to rape under the Penal Code, taking stock of the fact that the accused and the victim are presently living happily, pursuant to their marriage, refusal to quash will cause undue prejudice to the legally wedded husband and wife. 22. However, this Court also notice that in Jagdish Kumar v. State of H.P.17, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh refused to accept the compromise between the petitioner and the victim. Dehors their marriage, the learned Single Judge chose not to quash the proceedings. 23. The same is the situation in Hiteshbhai Urfe Bholo Gopalbhai Kadivar v. State of Gujarat18. By order dated 24-4-2024, the High Court of Gujarat also declined the relief of quashment based on the settlement between the parties in respect of offences under the POCSO Act. 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 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. 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- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 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. (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. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 (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) 3. In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala and the marriage of the petitioner-accused No.1 with the victim after the incident, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings with a rider that, in the event the petitioner would leave the lady in the lurch, the proceedings in Crime No.239/2025 would get revived. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is disposed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.239/2025 pending on the file of the Additional Civil - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1140 CRL.P No. 97 of 2026 Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-2 Court, Shivamogga, stand quashed qua the petitioner on the score that the petitioner – accused No.1 has married the victim. (iii) In the event the accused No.1 would leave the victim in the lurch later, the impugned proceedings would spring back by its revival. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38