Karnataka High Court
Sri Munendra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16959 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNENDRA
S/O GANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/A MANCHANABALE VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVENDRA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by BENGALURU - 560 001
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. SRI DYAVAPPA G.D.
KARNATAKA S/O LATE DODDAMUNILAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A GANGANAMIDDHE WARD NO 7
CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. ABHILASH KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.55/2022
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025
HC-KAR
LATER REGISTERED AS SPL.S.C.NO.99/2022 ON THE FILE
OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1
(POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
363,343,376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
AND SEC. 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 S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Spl. SC No. 99/2022, pending on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC- I, Chikkaballapura arising out of Crime No.55/2022 registered by Chikkaballapur Women Police Station, Chikaballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.55/2022 was registered by Chikkaballpura Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura, -3- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR initially for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC against the petitioner herein based on first information dated 15.05.2022 received from respondent No.2 herein, who is the father of the victim girl, who was aged 17 years, 10 months and 29 days as on the date of registration of FIR. In the first information, it is mentioned that the daughter of the respondent No.2 who had gone to college on 07.05.2022 had not returned home. Efforts made to trace her had failed. Since the first informant suspected the hands of the petitioner, FIR was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC in Crime No.55/2022. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and the victim were traced together and brought back. After completing investigation, charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and he is now being tried for the charge sheeted offences before the jurisdictional Special Court in Spl. SC No.99/ 2022. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The victim girl and the petitioner are married and the victim girl has given birth to a male child during the pendency of the case on 28.03.2024. They submit that pendency of the case has been causing hardship to the parties as well as their relatives, to lead a normal family life. The petitioner who is the sole breadwinner of the family is now taken to the custody for the reason that he had not appeared before the trial Court on the date of hearing. They submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled by the intervention of elders and well-wishers of both the parties and there is no coercion and undue influence on any party for settling the dispute. They also submit that parties intend to give a quietus to their interse dispute and live peacefully in future.
5. Learned counsels for the parties have also filed affidavit of the victim girl, her father and the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR affidavit of the mother of the petitioner. In the affidavit of the victim girl, in paragraph Nos.2 to 9, it is stated as follows:
"2. On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent (my father), the 1st respondent has registered a case in Crime No.55/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC later registered as Spl.SC No.99/2022 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC- 1 [POCSO], Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 or Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the petitioner herein (accused therein).
3. At the time of commission of the offence, I was a minor.
4. The marriage of mine and the petitioner was solemnized on 11.05.2022 at Masthi Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
5. As myself and the petitioner have settled in life by marrying and as such continuation of the proceedings in Spl. SC No.99/2022 is futile exercise.
6. I gave birth to a male child on 28.03.2024 at District Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and the father of the male child being the petitioner.
7. I state that the petitioner has filed the above criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.55/2022 later registered as Spl. SC No.99/2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC-1 [POSCO]. Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
8. 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.
9. I state that, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's mother have not exerted any pressure on me."
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court that offences for which petitioner has been charge sheeted are non- compoundable offences. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner who was the victim girl aged 17 years, 10 months, 29 days as on the date of registration of FIR, was in love with the petitioner and she had voluntarily left her house and had gone with the petitioner on 07.05.2022 and thereafter, they got married on 11.05.2022. Material now produced before the Court would go to show that victim girl has given birth to a boy child on 28.03.2024 and petitioner is the father of the said child. Victim girl who is married to the petitioner has attained the age of majority and thereafter, she has given birth to a male child on -7- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR 28.03.2024. In the affidavit of the victim girl, she has stated that she and the petitioner are living together happily as husband and wife. The parties intend to give a quietus to the inter se dispute and live peacefully in future.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1 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 GUJARAT2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641 3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances in the case of MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD Vs. STATE3 , 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.
8. In the case of AARUSH JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER4 , a Co-ordinate 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 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx".
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.5 in paragraph No.6 has held as follows:
"6. 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 Cr.P.C. 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."
10. 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 observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of GIAN SINGH and PARBATBHAI (supra), 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH6 , 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 exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court requires to exercise its inherent powers to do complete justice to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533 CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025 HC-KAR the parties who are before the Court. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Entire proceedings in Spl.SC No.99/2022 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC-I, Chikkaballapura arising out of Crime No. 55/2022 registered by Chikkaballapura Women police station, Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioner herein are hereby quashed.
(iii) The jail authorities are directed to forthwith release the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE PSJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2