Karnataka High Court
Abdul Sameer vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
CRL.P No. 10979 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10979 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ABDUL SAMEER
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT MANDYOOR HOUSE
KANYANA VILLAGE, BANTWAL
TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KARUNAKARA P, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VITLA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Digitally
signed by BENGALURU - 560 001.
NANDINI MS
Location: 2. XXX
High Court of
Karnataka
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SREEKANTH A, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.119/2023
REGISTERED BY VITLA POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II MANGALORE FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5(L),5(n),6 OF POCSO ACT AND
SEC.376(2)(f),376(2)(n),420 OF IPC AND ALSO REGISTRATION OF
FIR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VITLA P.S. IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
CRL.P No. 10979 of 2024
CR.NO.119/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5(L),5(n),6 OF POCSO
ACT AND SEC.376(2)(f),376(2)(n),420 OF IPC AND ALSO CASE IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
FTSC-II MANGALORE.
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 in Crime No.119/2023 registered by Vitla
Police station, Dakshina Kannada District for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) & 420 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(L), 5(n) and 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is
before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in FIR in Crime
No.119/2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.119/2023 was registered by
Vitla Police station, Dakshina Kannada for the aforesaid
offences against the petitioner herein on the basis of first
information received from respondent No.2, who is the
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
victim in the present case. The petitioner who was
arrested in the said case was granted interim bail by the
Trial Court by order dated 05.09.2024. Being aggrieved by
the FIR registered against the petitioner, he is before this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash
the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 jointly submit that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled,
after the criminal case was registered against the
petitioner. They submit that the petitioner and the victim
are in love and respondent No.2 by misconception has
submitted first information against the petitioner. They
submit that respondent No.2 apprehended that the
petitioner had no intention to marry her and therefore on
wrong advice, she had approached the police. They submit
that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are now married
and they have settled the inter se dispute at the
intervention of elders and well wishers and now filed a
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
joint memo before this Court which is supported by the
joint affidavit. They also submit that copy of marriage
certificate of the petitioner and respondent No.2 dated
10.10.2024 is also enclosed along with joint memo. They
submit that pendency of the criminal case has been
causing untold hardship to the parties and their relatives
and the petitioner and respondent No.2 are not in a
position to live normal marital life because of the
pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, they intend to
give a quietus to the dispute between them and they
intend to lead a normal family life. Accordingly, they pray
to allow the petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that since the petitioner has now married
respondent No.2, who is a major and considering the
averments made in the joint memo and affidavit filed in
support of joint memo, the prayer made in the petition
may be granted.
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
6. The joint memo filed by the parties is signed by
them and their respective advocates. The parties who are
present before the Court in person are identified by their
learned advocates. Along with joint memo, the parties
have filed their respective Adhar card and also marriage
certificate dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Karnataka
State Board of AUQAF.
7. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the joint memo filed
by the parties, it is stated as follows:
"2. The complaint was filed by the
second respondent with Vittla Police, under
misconception that, the petitioner/accused
would not marry him. However now the
petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant
have married to each other 08-09-2024, once
the complainant attained majority and are
happily living together. A copy of the marriage
certificate is produced herewith this joint
memo.
3. The complainant do not wish to
prosecute the case against Petitioner/husband
in crime No.119/2023 registered by Vitla Police
pending on the file of Addl. District and
Sessions Judge FTSC- II, Mangalore for the
offence pus 5(L), 5(n) of Protection of children
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
from sexual offences Act 2012 and IPC 1860 u.s
376(2),(f),376(2)(n), 420 of IPC."
8. In paragraphs 1 to 4 of the joint affidavit filed by
parties, it is stated as follows:
I, PARVEEN TAZ W/o. Abdul Kheel, aged
about 80 years and Abdul Sameer, S/o Ibrahim
aged about 88 years, both are R/ oMandyoor
house, kanyana village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.
district, today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows:-
1. we state that, the above petition has
been filed the petitioner herein challenging the
proceedings, in crime No:190/2023, petitioner
by the Vital police pending on the file of Addl.
district and sessions Judge FTSC-II, mangalore
for the offence pus 5(L) 5(n) of protection of
children from sexual offences Act 2012 and IPC
1860 U.S. 376(2), (f), 376(2) n. 420 of IPC.
2. We state that, the above complaint
filed by the complainant under with concetion
that the petitioner could not marry the now the
we have happily matted on 8-9-2024, before
Karnataka Board of Wakf and we are living
happily.
3. We state that, respondent herein
donot wish continue the proceedings, and the
respondent herein has no objection quash the
proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
4. We further state that we have
volintaily araised at settlement in order to live
happily."
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:41930
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 metamorphosing
into young age or an adult. It would not be
inapt to notice that young children or boys who
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
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 Section 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 case of Gian Singh and
Parbatbhai, that the powers of the High Court under
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
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 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.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
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, 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
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to do
complete justice to the parties who are before this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41930
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in Crime
No.119/2023 registered by Vitla police station,
Dakshina Kannada District for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n)
& 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
5(L), 5(n) and 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending before
the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
FTSC-II, Mangalore is quashed.
SD/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
