Karnataka High Court
Toufiq Husenbadsha Ameenagad @ Taufik ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 November, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
CRL.P No. 201195 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201195 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
TOUFIQ HUSENBADSHA AMEENAGAD @
TAUFIK HUSENBADSHA AMINGAD
S/O HUSENBADSHA AMEENAGAD
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT MUKIHAL VILLAGE, MUDDEBIHAL TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586212.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BALAPPA HIREKURABAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by SWETA
KULKARNI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION,
Court Of
Karnataka MUDDEBIHALA CIRCLE, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
VIJAYAPURA-586212.
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. BANU TAMADADDI,
W/O MODINASAB,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
(NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
REPRESENTS THE VICTIM)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
CRL.P No. 201195 of 2024
R/AT AWATI GALLI, MUDDEBIHAL,
MUDDEBIHAL TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586212.
(VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 AMENDED THE
CAUSE TITLE AS PER COURT ORDER)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. LAXMIKANTH T. PUJARI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.192/2024,
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 / POLICE I.E.
MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION, MUDDEBIHAL CIRCLE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 376(1), 376(2), 376(2)(F), 376(2)(J) OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 4, 6 AND 10 OF THE PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 (POCSO)
WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE FTSC-I, POCSO COURT, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR in crime
No.192/2024 registered at Muddebihal Police Station,
Vijayapura District, for offences punishable under Sections
376(1), 376(2), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(J) of IPC and Sections
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO" Act), 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the victim girl, a
minor aged about 17 years 8 months was found to be
pregnant, while she was examined by the Doctor at
Mangal Hospital, Rathnagiri, Maharashtra. On intimation
by the hospital authorities, the police recorded victim's
statement, based on which, aforementioned crime was
registered against the petitioner.
3. As per the statement of the victim, she has
completed II PUC in the year 2023 and her marriage was
fixed with the petitioner and therefore, he was visiting her
house regularly. In the month of May, both of them
indulged in physical relationship due to which, she became
pregnant. On 12.07.2024 her father took her to Mangal
hospital for medical examination, wherein, the Doctor
confirmed her pregnancy.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
4. The prosecution has alleged that, the petitioner
has committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor
victim aged below 18 years on account of which, she
became pregnant and therefore, committed the
aforementioned offences.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there was no complaint whatsoever by the
victim or her family members, on the other hand, the
police have forced the victim to sign the complaint. It is
contended that the victim was not a minor as on the date
of commission of alleged offence and in fact the family
members of victim and petitioner had arranged their
marriage and in the meanwhile, FIR was registered against
the petitioner. It is submitted that the victim and
petitioner were in love with each other and even accepting
that victim was aged 17 years 8 months at the time of
commission of alleged offence, her age was not made
known to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said
that there was any intention on his part to commit the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
alleged offences. He submitted that, now victim's marriage
has been performed with the petitioner by both the family
members.
6. The prosecution is relying on the SSLC marks
card of the victim wherein, her date of birth is mentioned
as 01.08.2006. The FIR is registered on 29.08.2024.
Hence, it is contended by the learned High Court
Government Pleader that the victim was aged below 18
years and she was a minor as on the date of commission
of alleged offences.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on a decision of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur, passed in the case of Tarun Vaishnav vs.
State of Rajasthan, in S.B.Criminal Misc(Pet.)
No.6323/2022, decided on 13.10.2022, to contend that
in an identical case, the proceedings are quashed against
the accused. Paragraphs No.12 to 14 of the said judgment
are extracted here under:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
"12. The parents of both the girl and the boy
beseeched that the subject FIR be quashed, because
the prosecution for an unreflective, yet consensual
act will be more detrimental to the rights and
interests of 'D' and her son, who is just-born.
13. This Court is not oblivious of the legal
position that in cases concerning sexual act with a
minor, consent, if any, has no legal sanctity and it
cannot be used as a defence. Needless to mention
that this Court cannot and does not accord any
approval or sanction to the sexual act of petitioner
with the prosecutrix but then, it is a hard reality
that their love affair has traversed beyond the legal
and moral bounds, consequence whereof has
begotten a child.
14. This Court cannot be a silent spectator
to or turn its back on the distressed family. If the
impugned FIR is not quashed, the petitioner will
have to face incarceration for at least 10 years. The
mistake or blunder which otherwise constitutes an
offence has been committed due to immature act
and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of
whom, one is still a minor."
8. It is contended by the learned counsel that the
above judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1890/2023 and
the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex
Court on 03.03.2023. A copy of the said order is produced
at Annexure-J1.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
9. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the High
Court of Meghalaya At Shillong, in the case of Shri. John
Franklin Shylla vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr.,
passed in Crl. Petn. No.3 of 2023, disposed on
21.06.2023, wherein under similar circumstances, the
proceedings were quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that, marriage of the victim girl has been
solemnized with the petitioner on 17.11.2024. He has
filed a memo along with the marriage card, marriage
certificate and marriage photographs. The said documents
are not disputed.
11. The victim and her parents as well as petitioner
and his parents are present before the Court. Respondent
No.2 / victim's mother submitted that the marriage of her
daughter was fixed with the petitioner earlier and
confirmed that their marriage has been performed on
17.11.2024, after her daughter attained majority. She has
filed an application stating that the petition may be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
allowed in the interest of future life of her daughter. The
said application is supported by an affidavit.
12. The victim girl has filed an affidavit stating that
she was in love with the petitioner and she has not lodged
any complaint and her marriage with the petitioner has
been solemnized on 17.11.2024.
13. The affidavits filed by the victim's mother and
the victim are placed on record.
14. In similar circumstances, this Court in
Crl.P.No.201097/2023 disposed of on 26.07.2023 and
Crl.P.No.201561/2023 disposed of on 17.11.2023 has
quashed the proceedings.
15. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstance
of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful
purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner. As an exceptional case and
to meets the ends of justice, it is just and appropriate to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8845
invoke the inherent power vested in this Court and to
quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Entire proceedings arising out of Crime
No.192/2024 of Muddebihal Police Station,
Vijayapura District, pending on the file of Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, POCSO
Court, Vijayapura District, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
AMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30, CT:SI
