- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDAN KUMAR M K, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS CHANDAN K. IN CHARGESHEET, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ADDRESS AS PER CHARGE SHEET: MANIGHATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 103. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: R/AT 1-66, CHEEKATAPALLE VILLAGE, SONNARASANAPALLE POST, GUDUPALLE SUB-DISTRICT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517425. 2. V. AMARAVATHI, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS AMARAVATHI IN CHARGESHEET, W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT JANNAGHATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 126. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 3. N. ARUNA, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ARUNA IN CHARGESHEET, W/O N. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 10-112/A, DIGUVA HARIJANAWADA, NEAR GANGAMMAGUDI, RAMASAMUDRAM, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 417. 4. NEERUGATTI RAVIKUMAR, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS N. RAVIKUMAR IN CHARGESHEET, S/O N. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 10-112/A, DIGUVA HARIJANAWADA, NEAR GANGAMMAGUDI, RAMASAMUDRAM, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 417. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHWIN RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLAR WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOLAR, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 2. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KODIKANNUR VILLAGE, ARAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; MS. MAHIMA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I (POCSO) KOLAR IN SPL.C (P) NO.70/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 201, 212, 323, 376(2)(N), 506 OF THE IPC 1860 AND SECTION 6 OF THE POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 AT ANENXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before the Court, seeking the following prayers: "a) Call for the relevant records; b) Allow this Criminal Petition by quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge & FTSC - I (POCSO), Kolar in Spl. C.(P) No. 70/2024 for the offences punishable punishable u/ss. 201, 212, 323, 376(2)(N), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 at ANNEXURE-D; c) Grant any such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri.Ashwin Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.AnoopKumar, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Ms.Mahima S, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are aunt, sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1. The first petitioner who is 23 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 years old is accused No.1, the others are parents of accused No.1 and members of the family. The second respondent is the grandmother of the victim. A crime comes to be registered for the offences punishable under sections 201, 212, 323, 376(2)(N), 506 of the IPC 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet and the matter is pending as Spl.C. (P) No.70/2024. 4. During the subsistence of the petition, at the time when the incident happened, the victim was 17 years and on account of the said relationship, a child is born which is now 3 months old. The victim after attaining the age of 18 years is now married to accused No.1 on 18.05.2025 and the same is registered on 29.05.2025 at Kolar. The certificate of marriage and birth certificate of the child are all appended to the petition. The parties to the lis have arrived at a settlement by drawing certain terms. The issue is whether the compounding application could be accepted and the proceedings closed against the accused. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 5. 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 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 12025 SCC OnLine SC 614 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 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 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 petitioners with a rider that in the event, accused No.1 would leave the victim in the lurch in future at any time, the proceedings under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19931 CRL.P No. 5453 of 2026 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 victim. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] Proceedings in SPL.C (P) No.70/2024 pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I (POCSO) Kolar, qua the petitioners stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 119