Karnataka High Court

Sajunaik Y vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2024

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:13540
                                                         CRL.P No. 2231 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                             BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2024

                   BETWEEN:

                   SAJUNAIK Y
                   C/O YANKANAIK
                   AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
                   NUMBER 18, BENDIGERI
                   SANNA TJHANDA
                   HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
                   DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA - 583 137.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI HARSHA G, ADV.)
                   AND:

                   1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN P.S
                        DAVANAGERE - 583 137
                        REP BY ITS SPP
Digitally signed
by B A KRISHNA          HIGH COURT BUILDING
KUMAR                   BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          2.   RAJAPPA K
                        S/O KARIYAPPA
                        NO. 2151/425, CHIKKAMMANNI
                        DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, LAST BUS STOP
                        DAVANGERE KARNATAKA - 583 137.

                   3.   VICTIM
                        AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
                        #18 BENDIGERI, SANNA THANDA
                        HARAPPANAHALI TALUK, DAVANGERE
                        KARNATAKA - 583 137.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                                      -2-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:13540
                                              CRL.P No. 2231 of 2024




(BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R-1;
    SRI AJAYPRABHU, ADV, FOR R-3;
    R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


      THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE      PROCEEDINGS             IN      SPL.C.(POCSO)NO.575/2023
(CR.NO.55/2023) ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS    JUDGE,      FTSC   -1,       DAVANAGERE    REGISTERED     IN
DAVANAGERE WOMEN P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 506, 313
OF   IPC   AND   SEC.    4     OF    POCSO    ACT     IN   SO   FAR   AS
ACCUSED/PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the

entire proceedings in Spl.C (POCSO) No.575/2023 pending

before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1,

Davanagere, arising out of Crime No.55/2023 registered by

Women Police Station, Davanagere, for the offences punishable

under Sections 376, 506, 313 IPC and Section 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent no.2 who is served in the matter, has

remained unrepresented before this Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Counsel for respondent no.3-victim submits that the dispute

between the parties has been amicably settled at the

intervention of the well-wishers and elders of both the parties.

During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner and the

victim got married and their marriage was registered in the

office of the Sub-Registrar, Harapanahalli on 25.01.2024. The

marriage registration certificate is also produced before this

Court. They submit that pendency of this petition has been

causing unnecessary stress in the family life of the parties as

well as their parents. They submit that the parties have filed a

joint compromise petition before this Court which is supported

by the affidavit of the petitioner and respondent no.3. They

jointly pray that the prayer made in the petition may be

allowed.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He

submits that the charge sheet has been filed for non-

compoundable offences. The victim was a minor as on the date

of alleged incident. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

6. FIR in Crime No.55/2023 was registered by Women Police

Station, Davanagere, for the aforesaid offences against the

petitioner herein on the basis of the first information received

from respondent no.2 who is the father of the victim girl. In the

first information, it is averred that on 25.05.2023, the first

informant's daughter viz., the victim herein had complained

stomach pain, and therefore, she was taken to the hospital.

The doctor after her medical checkup, informed respondent

no.2 that the victim was pregnant by 19 weeks. On enquiry,

the victim informed respondent no.2 that petitioner herein had

sexually assaulted her and on 24.05.2023, he had given her

tablets since she had missed her periods. After consuming the

said tablets, she had suffered stomach pain. It is in this

background, respondent no.2 had approached the police. The

police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the

petitioner.

7. The material on record would go to show that the victim

girl has not made any serious allegation against the petitioner

during the course of investigation. Even before the

jurisdictional Magistrate before whom her statement was

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC., she had stated that she

was in love with the petitioner for the last two years and by

chance they had sexual intercourse. The victim had completed

17 years of age as on the date of registration of FIR. The

petitioner and the victim have now got married and their

marriage is also registered before the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Harapanahalli on 25.01.2024. The certificate of

registration of marriage is also produced before this Court. The

parties who are before the court are identified by their learned

advocates and the parties have submitted before this Court

that pendency of the criminal case has been causing

unnecessary stress in their family life. They have also stated

that settlement between the parties is voluntary at the

intervention of elders of both the parties and subsequent to the

settlement, they are now married and residing together as

husband and wife. In paragraphs 2 & 3 of the compromise

petition filed before this Court, it is stated as under:

"2. That the accused in the above case and the complainant/Victim have compromised and settled the above matter out of the court and also victim married the petitioner and same is Sub-Registrar Harapanahalli dated 25.01.2024.both petitioner and victim leaving happily and leading family life as a husband and wife

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

and thus the complainant/victim do not wish to continue with the above case as against the petitioner in the above criminal petition.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner and complainant/victim have compromised and settled the above case out of court and they have got no claim as against each other and also both the parties shall have no right to institute any proceedings/case before the court of law as against each other."

8. In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed by the victim in

support of the joint compromise petition, it is stated as under:

"2. I state that, the facts and grounds urged in the above Criminal Petition may kindly be read as part and parcel for the purpose of brevity.

3. I state that, in the present Criminal Petition myself and the victim have settled our inter-say mis- understanding and dispute with the intervention and advices of our well-wishers and elderly members of our families and society and I have sought unconditional apology to the victim regarding the alleged incident. Now we have settled our dispute amicably and no longer intend to pursue the proceedings challenged in the above Criminal Petition.

4. Both the petitioner and victim married each other and leading happily marital life.

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

5. I state that, the above Criminal Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R, Complaint and entire proceedings may be quashed in Order to avoid waste of Public money and time. This affidavit may kindly be read as part and parcel of the Joint Settlement/Compromise petition."

9. 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

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

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

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

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 due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx "

10. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the

POCSO Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 of

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

Cr.P.C., however, considering the 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.

11. 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 arrived post

conviction, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be

exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of

Cr.P.C.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13540

12. 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, 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 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:

13. The Criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings

in in Spl.C (POCSO) No.575/2023 pending before the Court of

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Davanagere, arising