Karnataka High Court

Chandru S/O Devappa Dambal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                         -1-
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544
                                                                 CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025


                              HC-KAR



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
                                                       BEFORE
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103258 OF 2025
                                           (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
                             BETWEEN:
                             1.   CHANDRU S/O DEVAPPA DAMBAL,
                                  AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
                                  R/AT: DUNDUR, AMEDKAR ONI,
                                  TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111.

                             2.   SMT. RAMJANBI W/O DAVALSAB NADAF,
                                  AGE. 36 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS,
                                  R/AT. DUNDUR, AMBEDKAR ONI,
                                  TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111.
                                                                            ... PETITIONERS
                             (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)
                             AND:
                             1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                  GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, GADAG,
                                  R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                  DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.

          Digitally signed
          by RAKESH S
                             2.   YASMIN D/O IMAMSAB NADAF,
RAKESH    HARIHAR                 AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
          Location: HIGH
S         COURT OF                R/AT: DUNDUR, AMBEDKAR ONI,
HARIHAR   KARNATAKA
          DHARWAD                 TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 111.
          BENCH
                                                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                             (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
                                 SRI. HIRANKUMAR J. PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
                             CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
                             ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND
                             2/PETITIONERS AS IN GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME
                             NO.152/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
                             376(2)(I), 113, 114, 506 OF IPC ALONG WITH 4, 6 AND 17 OF
                             POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                             AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN S.C. NO.60/2021(POCSO), IN
                             THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544
                                   CRL.P No. 103258 of 2025


HC-KAR




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.60/2021 pending

before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Gadag, arising out of Crime No.152/2020 registered by

Gadag Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable

under Sections 376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC and

Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012, are before this

Court under Section 528 (482 of Cr.P.C.) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash

the entire proceedings as against them in the aforesaid

case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. 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 at

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both the

parties. The first petitioner has now married the

respondent no.2, who is the victim in the present case,

after she has attained the age of majority. From the

wedlock, the couple have a child. They intend to give a

quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore, they have

filed a joint memo before this Court with a prayer to

permit them to compound the alleged offences and

consequently, quash the entire proceedings. They submit

that in support of the joint memo, affidavit of respondent

no.2-victim is also filed. They also submit that the

settlement between the parties is voluntary without there

being any undue influence, coercion or threat from

anybody. Accordingly, they pray to allow the petition.

4. Learned HCGP, however, has brought to the

notice of this Court that the alleged offences are non-

confoundable in nature.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

5. The parties who are present before the Court

are identified by their respective advocates. The joint

memo and the affidavit of respondent no.2 filed in support

of the joint memo is taken on record. The joint memo is

signed by the parties and also by their respective

advocates. In paragraph nos.1 to 3 of the joint memo, it is

stated as follows:

"1) That, the victim's mother herein is the complainant and respondent no: 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused on the false allegation on one or the other reasons before Gadag Rural Police Station in Crime No:152/2021 for the offences punishable U/Sec.

376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC along with 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act 2012, pending on the files of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, At Gadag in SC. No.60/2021(POCSO). The dispute as aroused between the petitioner no. 1 and victim has been amicably settled in view of their marriage. Now petitioner no. 1 and victim have compromised the matter amicably and are willing to set aside their differences and stay as husband and wife. Hence in view of the same the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

petitioner has filed this petition quashing the further proceeding.

2) The petitioner no. 1 and the victim having married now and the pending case is acting as hinderance to their marital life. The above case being personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offence alleged by the respondent no:2 against the petitioner herein the above-mentioned petition is filed.

3) The petitioner no.1 and victim being major want to live their lives as a married couple. Hence it is just and necessary to permit the petitioner and the victim to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial."

6. In paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit filed

by respondent no.2 - victim in the present case, it is

stated as follows:

"4) I further state that, myself at the intervention of the well-wishers and the elderly members of both the side family members for my future life. I decided to put an end to the dispute between ourselves and accordingly arrived at a settlement of dispute and same is without their

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

being any undue influence, coercion or threat from anybody and is out of my own free will and wish, I assure that I will not prosecute any other criminal cases nor the above case as same is personal in nature, accordingly to facilitate compounding of the said offences alleged by me against the petitioner.

5) I also agree to give-up all their claims in respect of said cases as arouse in the dispute I further say that since the dispute between the petitioners and myself is settled amicably and I agree not to prosecute/contest the above-

mentioned case against the petitioners/accused as the alleged incident is personal in nature. Hence it is just and necessary to compound the said case instead of subjecting the petitioner to face the trial."

7. Parties have produced material before this

Court to show that the first petitioner and respondent no.2

are now married. It is submitted by the counsel appearing

for the parties that from the wedlock, the couple have a

child.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

8. 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 Waseem

Ahamad vs. State reported in AIR Online 2022 KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

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 observation made by the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

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 criminal proceedings registered now

for non compoundable offence.

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

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

compoundable offences where compromise is

voluntary and allegations are private in nature,

inherent powers of the High Court can be 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

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10544

HC-KAR

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

Criminal Petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings in S.C. No.60/2021 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.152/2020 registered by Gadag Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 113, 114, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby quashed against the petitioners.