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.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5363

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

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.