- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 34004 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDARAJU @ SIDDA, S/O NAGARAJA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O GUMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 01. 2. SMT. MADHUSHREE M. S., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, W/O SIDDARAJU @ SIDDA, D/O SRINIVASA R., Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 R/O GUMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 125. ALSO AT DOOR NO. 662, 28TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, J.P.NAGARA, MYSURU – 570 031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS I IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 148/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 0002/2024 OF VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I (SPL. COURT FOR POCSO CASES), MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 5(J)(II), 5(L), 6, 14 AND 15 OF THE POCSO ACT AND SECTION 372(2)(n) OF IPC AND SECTION 66 (E) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT VIDE ANNEXURE – 'D' RESPECTIVELY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 148/2024 (Arising out of Crime No. 0002/2024 of Vidyaranyapuram Police Station) pending on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I (Spl. Court for POCSO Cases), Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 5(J)(II), 5(L), 6, 14 and 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 372(2)(n) of IPC and Section 66 (E) Of the Information Technology Act vide Annexure 'D' respectively in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. b) Pleased to pass any other order or directions as this Hon'ble court feels fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 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 happened on 29.09.2025 after the victim has attained 18 years of age. The parties have preferred an application seeking compounding of the offence and closure of the proceedings on account of marriage between the two. 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 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 12025 SCC OnLine SC 614 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 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) Following the judgment of the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to close these proceedings against the petitioner with a rider that in the event, the petitioner-accused No.1 would leave the victim in the lurch in future at any time, the proceedings under the POCSO which is now ended on a settlement and not on its merit, will automatically get revived on a complaint being registered by the respondent-wife. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Writ Petition is allowed. [II] Proceedings in Special Case No.148/2024 pending before the Hon’ble Addl. District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I (Spl. Court for POCSO Cases), Mysuru, qua - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5876 WP No. 34004 of 2025 the petitioner stands quashed, with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 131