[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Waseem Khan @ Salman Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
CRL.P No. 16051 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16051 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. WASEEM KHAN @ SALMAN KHAN
S/O SRI. MUNAWAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 67,
7TH MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS,
PADARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
PIN 560026
2. SMT. NEHA KHANAM
W/O SRI. MOHAMED MASOOD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RA/T NO. 76, 5TH WARD,
YELAHANKA BEDI,
Digitally
signed by TOW OF DEVANAHALLI,
LAKSHMI T
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
Location:
High Court PIN 562110
of Karnataka
3. SRI. MUNAWAR KHAN
S/O SRI. ANWAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PADARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
PIN 560026
4. SMT. PARVEEN TAJ,
W/O SRI. MUNAWAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
CRL.P No. 16051 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF GORIPALYA AREA, BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
PIN 560026
5. SMT. ARBHIYA KHANAM. M.,
W/O SRI. SYED TOUSEED PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 67. 7TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU
DISTRICT. PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH,
PIN 560026
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKKABALLAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
PIN 562101
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01
2. XXX
W/O MAJAHAR AHAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS (NOW MAJOR),
R/AT WARD NO. 18,
VALASANNANA BEEDI,
KANDAWARA PETE,
CHIKKBALLAURA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT.
PIN 562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA A.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
CRL.P No. 16051 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET IN IN CRIME NO. 5/2025 REGISTERED BY
THE WOMEN POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 114, 323, 324, 343, 363, 366(A),
376(3), 376(2) (N), 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 4(2),
5(L), 5(J) (II), 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND U/S 9, 10
AND 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ASSITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I (POCSO) AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are seeking to quash the charge sheet
filed in Crime No.5/2025 of Chikkaballapura Women Police
Station, and the proceedings pending before the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.
2. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7
for the offence punishable under Section 114, 323, 366-A,
504 and 506 of IPC, Section 17 of the POCSO, Act, and
Section 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
3. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1
married the victim girl, a minor, on 25.05.2023 and
accused Nos.2 to 7 abetted the offence committed by him.
4. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are present
before the Court. An application is filed under Section
320(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., along with the
joint affidavit of the parties. Paragraph Nos.1 to 3 of the
joint affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
1. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
are the legal wedded husband and wife. The
marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
was solemnized on 25.05.2023 and the receipt of
that the reception was held on 27/05/2023. After the
marriage the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2
were residing at Bengaluru. The respondent No. 2
while she was 9 months pregnant was admitted in
Manasa Hospital. Chikkaballapura. respondent No.2
given birth to a boy on 18/08/2024 in the hospital.
Subsequently due to wrong advice a complaint dated
17/01/2025 came to be lodged before the
Chikkaballapura women police in crime No.5/2025.
After, the investigation the police have filed charge
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
sheet before the Additional District and Session
Judge FTSC-1, Chikkaballapura, same was numbered
as Special SC No. 39/2025, for the alleged offences
punishable u/s 114, 323, 324, 343, 363, 366(A),
376(3), 376(2) (n), 504 and 506 of IPC and Section
4(2), 5(L), 5(J) (II), 6 and 17 of POCSO ACT, 2012
and u/s 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006. Thereafter, the trial court has taken
cognizance. The petitioner No.2 and 5 are sisters and
petitioner No.3 and 4 are the father and mother of
petitioner No. 1. The petitioners being aggrieved by
the filing of the charge sheet and order of taking
cognizance have filed this criminal petition to quash
the entire proceedings.
2. We state that, the respondent No. 2 has
given birth to a baby boy on 18/08/2023. The
petitioners are enlarged on bail u/s 438 of CRPC. The
petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 are residing
together along with their son at Bengaluru. As on the
date of the marriage I was major. The petitioner
No.1 is the only bread earning member of the family
and there is no one to take care of respondent No. 2
and the minor son. The petitioner No.1 and
respondent No. 2 are living together with new
beginning.
3. Under these circumstances, the 2nd
respondent CW-1 is not interested to prosecute the
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
case against the petitioners and We seek leave of
this Hon'ble court to permit the parties to compound
the aforesaid offences and to save the life and
family. Otherwise we will be put to untold misery and
hardship.
5. It is stated that the marriage of petitioner Nos.1
and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.05.2023, and
they are now residing together along with their child.
6. Respondent No.2 has submitted that as on the
date of marriage, she was a major and she is now living
with petitioner No.1 and their child. She submits, the
matter has been amicably settled and therefore, she is not
interested in prosecuting the matter any further and has
no objection to quash the proceedings.
7. The offences alleged are not compoundable in
nature. However, it is stated that the victim girl has
married petitioner No.1 after attaining majority and she is
now living with him and their minor child.
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar situation, in
Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of UP reported in 2025
SCC online SC 614, taking into consideration the
settlement, quashed the proceedings, observing that the
parties are happily married, no purpose will be served by
continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue
harassment to the parties.
9. It is also useful to refer to para 7 of the
judgment in Madhukar and others v. State of
Maharashtra and another arising out of SLP(Crl.)
No.7212/2025, which is extracted hereunder:-
"7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an
unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious
charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain
context to the allegations and suggests that the second
FIR may have been a reactionary step. More
importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has
unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the
case. She has submitted that she is now married,
settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and
stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous,
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
she has consistently maintained, including through an
affidavit on record, that she does not support the
prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties
have also amicably resolved their differences and
arrived at a mutual understanding. In these
circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not
serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong
distress for all concerned, especially the complainant,
and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
productive outcome."
10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in
light of the above judgments, the continuation of the trial
would not serve any meaningful purpose on the other
hand, it will prolong the distress for all concern, especially
the victim girl. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is just
and necessary to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the
following:-
ORDER
i) Application is allowed. Consequently, the
petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.39/2025
pending on the file of the Court of IV Additional District
NC: 2025:KHC:53638
HC-KAR
and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura arising out of
Crime No.5/2025 of Chikkaballapura Women Police Station
are quashed.
I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
LDC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 139
