Shivaraj S/O. Basappa Naduvinkeri vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Geetha K.B. J

Notice to respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

Learned counsel for the petitioner files memo with original ತಾಯಿ ಕಾರ್ಡ್ and after perusal it is returned by retaining its copy.

This is the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS, 2023', for short)/482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioner/accused in Crime No.60/2024 of Shirahatti Police Station registered as S.C.No.40/2024 (POCSO Act) on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offences punishable Sections 363, 376(2) (N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The brief facts of the case alleged in the charge sheet are that on 15.04.2024, the accused/present petitioner has kidnapped the minor victim with an intention to commit penetrative sexual assault on her; took her to Veerabhadraswamy temple near Panduranga auto stand, Hasan and then to Room No.5 at 4th Floor of Manasvi Complex; on 17.04.2024 committed penetrative sexual assault on her and also subsequently 3-4 times and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

Petitioner and the victim are present before Court and they are identified by learned counsel for the petitioner. Along with petition, petitioner has produced marriage certificate of the petitioner and victim, which reveals that they were married on 25.05.2025 and said marriage was registered on 30.05.2025. The age certificate of victim produced before the Sessions Court, which reveals that the date of birth of victim is 26.04.2006. The alleged date of petitioner taking the victim without the consent of her parents has taken place on 15.04.2024. In the first information itself, it is stated that the age of victim is 17 years 11 months 21 days. Hence only 9 days is short of to attain the age of majority as on the date of alleged incident of taking the victim by the petitioner.

After receipt of FIR, charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court alleging the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken, charge was framed against accused. After framing of charge, trial was commenced and some witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Now the case is at the stage of further trial to examine the remaining witnesses.

The victim was examined in the aforesaid case as PW1. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that victim has not supported the case of prosecution regarding these alleged offences against the petitioner. Learned HCGP has not disputed these facts.

The victim who is present before Court submitted that she married the petitioner and leading happy married life with him and she is being looked after by the petitioner and her in-laws properly. She is at 8th month of her pregnancy and she wanted the criminal case against her husband be closed for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

According to ತಾಯಿ ಕಾರ್ಡ್ produced today, the date of last menstruation of victim is 07.09.2025 and estimated date of delivery is 14.06.2026. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage with petitioner, the victim became conceived and presently, she is in her advanced stage of pregnancy.

The offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 are non-compoundable in nature. Even then, this court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the proceedings, if it is required to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein at paragraph 61, it is held as under:

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 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 the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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 the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

Thus, the powers that this court can exercise under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 is distinct and different from the powers that exercised by criminal courts under Section 320 Cr.P.C/Section 359 of BNSS, 2023. However, such powers are to be exercised judiciously to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muhesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and Others Criminal Appeal No.001005/2025 disposed of on 28.02.2025, wherein at para 8 it is held as under:

"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."

Learned counsel for petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manjunatha Vs. State of Karnataka and Another Criminal Petition No.4658/2024 disposed of on 10.07.2024, wherein the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was allowed by quashing the proceedings against accused wherein similar offences are alleged.

With this background, the facts of the present case are to be analyzed.

As discussed above, the alleged incident had taken place when the victim was aged 17 years 11 months 21 days, i.e., only short of 9 days to become major. The victim has taken decision that she should live with the petitioner and after she attaining majority, she married him. The marriage certificate produced in this case revealed that only after victim attending majority has married the petitioner and now they are leading happy marital life and because of that she is conceived and in her advanced age of pregnancy. Thus, the victim would give birth to a child in a very short period. That new born baby will not aware about the facts which were happened earlier. If proceedings against the petitioner are not quashed, it would allow abuse of process of court because it is already on record that victim has not supported the case of prosecution in respect of the alleged offences against petitioner.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mohammad Waseem Ahamad Vs. State AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 held that, when accused and victim got married and victim gave birth to a child, then proceedings in criminal case, which are pending against the petitioner, are to be quashed.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhukar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another In paragraph number 6 and 7 held as follows:

At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step.

More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

Considering the above principles noted in all the above citations, this Court is of the opinion that this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 even for the offences which are not covered under Section 320 Cr.P.C/Section 359 of BNSS, 2023. Thus inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings if the court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal case is not in the interest of parties and on the other hand ends of justice would be secured if criminal proceedings are quashed.

Even though the notice of this petition is served upon respondent No.2, who is the first informant and mother of the victim, she is unrepresented, which shows that she is not having any objection to this petition. If she is having serious objections, she would have come forward to the court and would file her objections.

The subsequent developments after filing the charge sheet are that victim married petitioner and leading happy married life with him and she is already in her advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, to have peaceful future life between petitioner and accused, criminal proceedings against petitioner shall not be continued.

Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings against the petitioner are to be quashed.

For the above reasons, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/428 Cr.P.C is allowed.

ii. Proceedings against petitioner in Crime No.60/2024 of Shirahatti Police Station registered as S.C.No.40/2024 (POCSO Act), pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offences punishable Sections 363, 376(2) (N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, are hereby quashed.

iii. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.