Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivaraj S/O Basavaraj Madiwalar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:837
CRL.P No. 100117 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100117 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHIVARAJ S/O. BASAVARAJ MADIWALAR
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HAGANUR, TQ. HUVINHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583216.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M.MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE INSPECTOR NIPPANI
RURAL POLICE STATION, TALUK. NIPPANI,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591237,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT. DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. RAMA MAMADAPURE
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH (MOTHER OF VICTIM), AGE. 32 YEARS,
Date: 2025.01.22
15:00:42 +0530 OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KURUBARGALLI,
AKKOLA VILLAGE, TQ. NIPPANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591211.
3. SMT. SAMPADA W/O. SHIVARAJ MADIWALAR
AGE. 14 YEARS, R/O. HAGANURU VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583216.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:837
CRL.P No. 100117 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528
OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN SPL.CASE
NO.83/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
FTSC-I, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI, AND TO ALLOW THE PETITION
FILED BY THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET FILED IN SPL.CASE NO.83/2023 NIPPANI RURAL
P.S. CRIME NO.99/2020 U/S 363, 366, 366(A), 376(1), 376(2) (h),
376(2)(i), 376(2)(o), 344, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF
POCSO ACT PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I, BELAGAVI, AT
BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused, who is charge sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 376(1),
376(2)(h), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(o), 344, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, and
6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, a missing
complaint was filed by the mother of the survivor, and during the
course of investigation, the survivor was traced on 25.01.2023 and
her statement was recorded, wherein, it is alleged that, she met the
petitioner in the fields of Davanagere when they were grazing the
sheep. Later, the survivor came to Akkol village and the petitioner
came to Akkol Village and called her over phone at 11.45 p.m. The
survivor went along with the petitioner and both were started living
together and the petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse
for about two years and she became pregnant due to the sexual
intercourse.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:837
The petitioner-accused was aged about 23 years and the
survivor was aged about 17 years as of the date of the incident.
3. The petitioner-accused, the survivor and her mother
are present before this Court and they have filed a joint affidavit
stating that the marriage of the petitioner-accused with the survivor
was solemnized on 17.9.2024 and the same was registered before
the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. It is further stated, from the sexual
intercourse, a female child was born on 8.5.2023.
4. The complainant and the survivor, who are present
before this Court, have no objection for quashing the proceedings.
5. The learned Additional Government for the
respondent-State submitted that the offences alleged against the
petitioner is heinous and crime against the survivor, and therefore
the same cannot be compounded.
6. In identical circumstances, the High Court of
Rajasthan, in the case of Tarun Vaishnav -vs- State of
Rajasthan, at paras 18 and 19 has held as follows:
"18. This Court feels that it is a fit case to exercise its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for
quashing the FIR to secure the ends of justice, because:-
(i) an adolescent girl of tender age (16 years) has
fallen in love with a boy of 22 years;
(ii) both being immature, apparently driven by
momentary emotions have fallen prey to lust,
surpassing social, moral and legal limits;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:837
(iii) the complainant is the police and the girl or her
family are neither aggrieved party nor complainant;
(iv) the girl has been consistent in her stand that she
consented to the physical relationship. Not only in her
statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the
Code but also before this Court, the girl unequivocally
accepted that she had consented to the act;
(v) their fornication though may be without legal and
moral sanction, has resulted in child birth;
(vi) parents of both - the girl and the boy having
forgiven their respective children for their felony,
intend to tie them in nuptial knot, when the
prosecutrix attains marriageable age;
(vii) if the prosecution continues, the petitioner is sure
to face conviction, as the girl is minor. The conviction
will result in 10 years of incarceration which would
bring more agony and misery to the girl and her newly
born son, rather than securing justice;
(viii) and also because, the basic ingredients of
retributive theory of punishment -"avenge for the
person wronged" is completely absent.
19. Faced with such situation and upon appraisal of the overall
circumstances, as an exceptional case, this Court is persuaded
to allow the petition, as prayed. The impugned FIR
No.0260/2022 registered at Police Station Devnagar, Jodhpur
City (West) against the petitioner, is hereby, quashed not only
on the basis of compromise, but also for the reasons
mentioned hereinabove and what has transpired during the
course of hearing."
6. The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan was
taken up in an appeal, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
confirmed the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in SLP (Crl.)
No. 1890/2023 dated 3.3.2023.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:837
7. Though the survivor was the minor as on the date of
incident, however, having regard to the fact that, the marriage of
the survivor with the accused having been solemnized, and the
survivor is aged more than 18 years as on the date of the marriage,
if the petitioner-accused is subjected to trial it would result in
incarceration of the petitioner accused resulting in causing misery
and agony to the survivor rather than securing justice. Therefore,
the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of
process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition stands allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.Case No.83/2023
pending on the file of the learned Addl. District Judge, FTSC-I
Belagavi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HR
Ct:vh
