Karnataka High Court
Siddalingappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363
CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200932 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O HANMANTHA KATTIMANI,
AGE : 24 YEARS, OCC : TRACTOR DRIVER,
R/O VAGANGERA VILLAGE, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST : YADGIRI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION, YADGIRI,
ITS REPRESENT BY ADDL SPP.,
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by
SHILPA R
AT KALABURAGI BENCH,
TENIHALLI DIST : KALABURAGI-07.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. LAXMI D/O (ISHAPPA)
W/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. HH,
R/O H.NO.117 VTC, GURUSUNGI,
TQ. WADGIRI, DIST YADGIRI-03.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M.REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363
CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024
REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.32/2021 REGISTERED BY THE
WOMEN POLICE STATION YADGIRI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 366, 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF
POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC.9 OF PCM ACT 2006, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SESSION JUDGE AT YADGIRI
IN SPL.CASE NO.47/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused in Special Case No.47/2021 pending before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Yadgir arising out of Crime No.32/2021 registered by the Women Police Station, Yadgiri for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 509 of IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The petitioner and respondent No.2, who is the victim in the present case, have married on 19.01.2023 and their marriage is registered before the jurisdictional Registrar of Marriage, Yadgir. They submit that the copy of marriage certificate is produced along with the petition. They also submits that eversince the date of marriage, the petitioner and second respondent are living as husband and wife happily and pendency of this case has been causing unnecessary stress in their family life. They intend to give quietus to the dispute and they wish to lead happy married life and therefore they have filed an application under Section 320(8) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to permit them to compound the offences and consequently to allow the petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri Shivasharana Reddy has filed Vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned High -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 Court Government Pleader who is directed to take notice for respondent No.1 has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the non- compoundable offences and therefore the prayer made in the application by the parties cannot be granted.
5. The application filed by the parties today before this Court under Section 320(8) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C is taken on record. The said application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and the second respondent, who is the victim in the present case.
6. The material on record would go to show that the date of birth of the victim is 15.11.2004 and after attaining the age of majority, she has married the petitioner on 19.01.2023 and their marriage is registered before the jurisdictional Registrar of Marriage. The parties who are present before this Court are identified by their respective Advocates. The parties have stated that the settlement is voluntary without there being undue -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 influence and coercion and they intend to give quietus to the dispute and wish to lead happy married life.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and these powers can be exercised to quash the legal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where the parties have settled their dispute and for that purpose any definite category of offence cannot be prescribed. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions outlined under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which means, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers independently notwithstanding the limitations under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. A coordinate bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances in the case of Mohammad -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 Waseem Ahamad vs. State reported in AIR Online 2022 KAR 314, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties after the accused and the victim got married and the victim had given birth to a child, has quashed the entire proceedings in the criminal case which was pending before the Special Court for similar offences. In the case of Aarush Jain vs. State of Karnataka and another (Crl.P. No.3710/2022 DD 09.09.2022) a coordinate bench of this Court has observed as follows:
"xxxxxxxxxxx It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the victim were close friends and were infatuated to each other. Several Courts as quoted hereinabove have considered the impact of hauling an under aged boy into the web of the provisions under the POCSO Act has clearly held that POCSO Act was not meant to punish the accused who were in love with the victims therein.
14. It is a known fact which bear consideration in the aforequoted judgments, in physiological parlance, that adolescence of a child is between 10 to 19 years and young age is said to be between 20 to 24 years. Therefore, adolescence is a continuum of development process in the life of a child -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 metamorphosing into young age or an adult. It would not be inapt to notice that young children or boys who have not yet reached the age of 18 years, many a time, without realizing or being ignorant of the consequences of their act which they perform in the frenzy of youth, emerge themselves as offenders under the provisions of POCSO Act and face serious consequences. Romantic love between a boy and a girl of the age of adolescence sometimes arising out of infatuations result in the boy embroiling himself into the vortex of the provisions of the POCSO Act.
15. The laudable object for which the POCSO Act was brought into effect cannot be forgotten, but that would not mean that it is meant to punish young children who would fall in love and commit such acts which would become punishable under the Act, a caveat, this Court is not painting every incidence of sexual activity of any kind that would become an offence under the POCSO Act, with the same brush, but there are cases of the kind, like the one at hand, where the adolescents have indulged in such acts due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx".
8. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., however, considering the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh and Parbatbhai, that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings if this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal case is not in the interest of the parties and on the other hand ends of justice would be secured if the criminal proceedings is quashed, notwithstanding the fact that alleged offences are non compoundable, still this Court in deserving cases can quash the entire proceedings.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and allegations are private in nature, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
10. The High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving non- compoundable offence is required to take into consideration the gravity of offences and also the nature of offence. If the alleged offences are purely private in nature and if it is between the close family members and if a settlement is arrived between the parties who are close family members who intend to give a quietus to all the disputes, High Court can quash such criminal proceedings. The High Court is required to exercise such discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case surrounding the incident and also the background in which the settlement has been arrived between the parties having regard to the nature of the offences and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers of this Court under
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363 CRL.P No. 200932 of 2024 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to do complete justice to the parties who are before this Court. Accordingly, the following order :
Criminal Petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in Crime No.35/2021 registered by Yadgir Women Police Station, Yadgir for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 509 of IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 which is now pending in Special Case No.47/2021 before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Yadgir is quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52