- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1161 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. SUNIL KUMAR B. B., S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT BAVALALU VILLAGE PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE - 571 108. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEKANANDA H. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 3. XXX XXXX XXXX Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 XXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; MS. ANUSHA K. N., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET DATED 28.10.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN CRIME NO.143/202 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366, 376(2)(N) OF THE IPC 1860 SECTION 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9 OF PREVENTION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Spl.C.No.563/2022, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 2. The daughter of respondent No.2, was a minor aged 17 years at the relevant point in time, who had become a victim at the hands of the petitioner – accused. Therefore, the mother of the victim girl registered a complaint against the petitioner – accused in Crime No.143/2022. The police after investigation, filed their charge sheet against the accused in Spl.C.No.563/2022. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that during the pendency of the petition, the victim girl and the accused have got married and the marriage is registered on 25.11.2024. In this regard, the parties to the lis have filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and a photocopy of the marriage certificate is appended to the petition, before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. They would submit that if the proceedings are continued, it would prejudice their married life. 4. The issue now would be, whether on account of marriage, the proceedings against the petitioner - accused could be quashed or otherwise. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 1 has held as follows: "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 1 [2025 SCC Online SC 614] - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 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. 9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016 registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The application of the parties reads as follows: “2. The Petitioner states that, after the commencement of trial, the Petitioner and Respondent no.3 have entered into a wedlock as per the registration certificate appended to criminal petition as Annexure 'D' and in view of the same, the Respondent No.2, the complainant also wishes not to prosecute the case and would like to facilitate a happy marital life between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3. 3. The Petitioner states that, the Respondent No.2 has already conveyed her decision not to prosecute the case during on-going trail. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 are staying together at their matrimonial home and thereby wish not to precipitate any issues between the two.” In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the marriage of the accused with the victim after the incident has solemnized on 25.11.2024, I deem it appropriate to obliterate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10753 CRL.P No. 1161 of 2026 the proceedings with a rider that in the event, the petitioner would leave the lady in lurch, the proceedings in Spl.C.No.563/2022 would get revived. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is disposed. (ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.563/2022, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Mysuru, stand quashed. (iii) In the event the petitioner - accused would leave the victim in the lurch later, the impugned proceedings would spring back by its revival. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:SS