SRI NAVEEN Y. N v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2. SMT. ADEMMA W/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BANDOLLAPALLI VILLAGE JOOLAPALYA SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP A/W., SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI SRINATH B. V., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0053/2023 LATER REGISTERED AS SPL.SC NO.80/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC - 1 (POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 363, 376 (2)(n) OF IPC AND SECTION 6, 5(n), 11, 12 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner, the sole accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.SC.No.80/2023, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I (POCSO), Chikkaballapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of the IPC; Sections 5(n), 6, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the score that the petitioner – accused and the daughter of respondent No.2 are married. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR

2. Heard Sri Devendra N., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri Srinath B.V., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: On 02.03.2023, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.53/2023, for the offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of the IPC; Sections 5(n), 6, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,

2006. At the relevant point in time, the daughter of respondent No.2 - victim was 17 years. Later, it transpires that the petitioner and the daughter of respondent No.2 get married on 08.08.2025 and the same is registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Bagepalli. The couple as on today, have two children.

4. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. The petitioner, the daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR No.2 have filed separate affidavits seeking permission to compound the offences before this Court.

5. In the light of the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and daughter of respondent No.2 has already taken place and the petitioner, daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 have filed their affidavits seeking permission to compound the offences, I deem it appropriate to accept the same and obliterate the crime / quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner.

6. The Apex Court 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 1 [2025 SCC Online SC 614] - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. the application

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 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. for dropping

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) The affidavit of the victim – daughter of respondent No.2, who has attained majority, reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR Yallampalli “XXXXXX, W/o Naveen. Y. N, Aged about 19 years, R/a: KasabaHobli, BagepalliTaluk, Chikkaballapur District 561 207 now at Bengaluru do make oath and solemnly affirm as follows: Village,

1. I state that I am the victim in the said case and I know the facts of the above case.

2. I state that, on the basis of the statement given by me, the 1st respondent has registered a case in Crime No. 0053 / 2023 later registered as Spl. SC No. 80/2024 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC-1 [POCSO], Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 6, 5(n), 11, 12 OF Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the petitioner.

3. I state that the petitioner has filed the above criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 0053 / 2023 later registered as Spl. SC No. 80/2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC 1 [POCSO], Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 6,5(n), 11,12 of Protection of Children from Sexua Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

4. I state that during the course of these proceedings with the intervention of the elders and well wishers of respective family the dispute between me and the petitioner was settled out of Court.

5. I state that, during the proceedings, I attained majority and the petitioner and we got married on 08.08.2025 registered in the office of the Marriage Registrar, Bagepalli bearing document no. BGP HM00103 2025 26 registered on 17.10.2025. Further due to the intervention of the elders and well wishers of our respective well wishers we have settled the matter out of the Court. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR

6. I state that myself and the petitioner have been living the same roof since 08.08.2025. together under

7. I state that, the petitioner has not exerted any pressure on me. Wherefore I request this Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 0053 / 2023 later registered as Spl. SC No. 80 / 2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC - 1 offences [POCSO], Chikkaballapur punishable under Section 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 6, 5(n),11,12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 and sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the petitioner in the interest of justice. I, the deponent herein do make oath and solemnly affirm that this is my name and I have signed this affidavit and the contents of this affidavit are true the best of my knowledge, belief and information.” Later, the High Court of Kerala in the case of STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 2295, has held as follows: “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 settlement between the parties, especially when the - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR in cases is genuine and bona fide so as to settlement 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 quashment conclusion is wholly impermissible 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 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. penetrative assault, sexual etc.

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- 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 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 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 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. (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. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR (7) Compelling 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.” continuance (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala and that the marriage of the accused with the victim has taken place and living happily, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime, with a rider that in the event, the petitioner would leave the lady – victim in lurch, the impugned proceedings in Spl.SC.No.80/2023 would get revived.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R a. The Criminal Petition is allowed. b. The proceedings in Spl.SC.No.80/2023, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I (POCSO), Chikkaballapur, stands quashed, on account of the observations made in the course of the order. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:14076 CRL.P No. 16389 of 2025 HC-KAR c. It is made clear that if the daughter of respondent No.2 – victim is left in the lurch by the petitioner, the impugned proceedings, which has now been obliterated on account of the quashment, would get revived. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE List No.: 2 Sl No.: 102