Karnataka High Court
Shri. Narasimaiah @ Narasimha vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46360
CRL.P No. 12508 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12508 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NARASIMAIAH @ NARASIMHA,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT KALLUDEVANAHALLI,
MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562 120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MAGADI P.S.,
MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120,
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED S.P.P,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR 2. SHRI. SURENDRA B.L,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MAJOR (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
KARNATAKA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS: TALUK CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
3. VICTIM GIRL,
AGED 17 YEARS 9 MONTHS,
FATHERS NAME NOT DISCLOSED AS PER DIRECTIONS
ADDRESS NOT DISCLOSED
AS PER DIRECTIONS.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46360
CRL.P No. 12508 of 2023
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN SPL.C.NO.138/2023 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 5(L)
AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC.9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD
MARRIAGE ACT 2006 GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
Sections 4, 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences
Act and Section 376 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner
fully knowing that the survivor of minor solemnized his
marriage and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault.
3. The mother of the petitioner-accused, the father of
survivor, and survivor are present before this Court, and they
have stated that marriage of the petitioner/accused was
solemnized with consent and sexual intercourse with accused
and survivor was consensual one, and due to said act, survivor
has conceived, and is likely to deliver in few days. As on the
date of marriage, the survivor was aged 17 years and when she
went to hospital for examination, it was discovered that
survivor was pregnant, married and thereafter the FIR was
registered on 19.07.2023. The survivor is aged 17 years 10
months as of today.
NC: 2023:KHC:46360
4. In identical circumstances, the High Court of
Rajasthan, in the case of Tarun Vaishnav -vs- State of
Rajasthan, at paras 18 and 19 has held as follows:
"18. This Court feels that it is a fit case to exercise its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for
quashing the FIR to secure the ends of justice,
because:-
(i) an adolescent girl of tender age (16 years) has
fallen in love with a boy of 22 years;
(ii) both being immature, apparently driven by
momentary emotions have fallen prey to lust,
surpassing social, moral and legal limits;
(iii) the complainant is the police and the girl or
her family are neither aggrieved party nor
complainant;
(iv) the girl has been consistent in her stand that
she consented to the physical relationship. Not
only in her statements under Section 161 and
Section 164 of the Code but also before this Court,
the girl unequivocally accepted that she had
consented to the act;
(v) their fornication though may be without legal
and moral sanction, has resulted in child birth;
(vi) parents of both - the girl and the boy having
forgiven their respective children for their felony,
intend to tie them in nuptial knot, when the
prosecutrix attains marriageable age;
(vii) if the prosecution continues, the petitioner is
sure to face conviction, as the girl is minor. The
conviction will result in 10 years of incarceration
which would bring more agony and misery to the
girl and her newly born son, rather than securing
justice;
NC: 2023:KHC:46360
(viii) and also because, the basic ingredients of
retributive theory of punishment -"avenge for the
person wronged" is completely absent.
19. Faced with such situation and upon appraisal of the
overall circumstances, as an exceptional case, this Court is
persuaded to allow the petition, as prayed. The impugned
FIR No.0260/2022 registered at Police Station Devnagar,
Jodhpur City (West) against the petitioner, is hereby,
quashed not only on the basis of compromise, but also for
the reasons mentioned hereinabove and what has
transpired during the course of hearing."
5. The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan was
taken up in an appeal, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
confirmed the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in SLP
(Crl.) No.1890/2023 dated 3.3.2023.
6. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
cognizable and non-compoundable. However, having regard to
the fact that the survivor is pregnant, and likely to deliver in a
few days, and if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it
may result in incarceration of the petitioner-accused causing
misery and agony rather than securing ends of justice to the
survivor and her child in the womb. Therefore, to secure ends
of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned
proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings pending against the
petitioner in Spl.C.No.138/2023 on the file of I Additional
NC: 2023:KHC:46360
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Ramanagara is hereby quashed.
iii) The petitioner-accused to register his marriage with
the survivor before the competent authority after the
survivor attains age of majority, and produce the
certificate of registration of marriage before this Court on
or before 15.02.2024.
iv) This order is subject to the condition that petitioner
registering his marriage with the survivor before the
competent authority.
v) The petitioner to be released from Judicial Custody
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MKM
CT: BHK
