Karnataka High Court

Sanju S/O. Adiveppa Devaramani vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
                                                      CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025


                    HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102412 OF 2025
                                  (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

                   BETWEEN:
                   SANJU S/O. ADIVEPPA DEVARAMANI,
                   AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                   R/O. YARZARVI TQ. YARAGATTI,
                   DIST. BELAGAVI-591129.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SHRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MURAGOD P.S.,
                        REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                        DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                   2.   MAHADEVI D/O. MAHANTESH PANADI,
                        AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S             R/O. YARZARVI, TQ. YARAGATTI,
HARIHAR
Location: High          DIST. BELAGAVI-591129.
Court of
Karnataka,                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench
                   (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
                       SHRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R2)

                         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
                   528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
                   PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
                   PUNISHABLE U/S.137(1)(b), 64(1), 64(2)m OF BNS AND SECTION 4
                   & 6 OF POCSO ACT IN SPL. CASE NO.643/2024 PENDING ON THE
                   FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I BELAGAVI
                   (POCSO) AT BELAGAVI (MURAGOD PS CRIME NO.202/2024)
                   AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1), IN THE INTEREST OF
                   JUSTICE.

                        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
                   WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
                                   CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025


HC-KAR




                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard Sri. Harshawardhana M. Patil, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri.

Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -

de facto complainant.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in

S.C. No.643/2024 on the file of the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO),

Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections

137(1)(b), 64(1), 645(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is

that the victim was aged about 17 years 4 months in the

year 2024. The petitioner came into contact with the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

victim, developed love with her and on a promise to

marriage, he took her and committed penetrative and

aggravated sexual assault on her and thereafter, he made

criminal intimidations to eliminate her. Hence, the first

informant lodged the complaint which led to registration of

FIR and initiation of investigation. The Investigating Officer

investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for the

aforesaid offences. Soon after receipt of the charge sheet,

the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued

process against the accused. Taking exception to the

same, this petitioner filed petition to quash the entire

proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim

(respondent No.2 - de facto complainant) on 13.05.2025

before the Sub-Registrar, Murgod, and the marriage has

since been registered. It is further submitted that the

families of both the accused and the victim are now

maintaining cordial relations, and the earlier differences

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

have been amicably resolved. The accused and the victim

are presently residing together under one roof. In light of

this development, a compromise petition has been filed,

wherein the parties have expressed that the continuation

of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve

no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the

process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-

compoundable in nature, the petitioner has sought

quashing of the proceedings and permission to record the

compromise.

5. Today, both the accused and respondent No.2 -

the de facto complainant are present before the Court.

They have affirmed that they are legally married, having

registered their marriage before the Sub-Registrar, and

that the dispute between them has been resolved

amicably.

6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State

submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

the parties, the Court may allow the compromise and

quash the proceedings.

7. Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 - de facto complainant submits that since

the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the

accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim, in

view of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings may

be quashed.

8. Perused the materials available on record. The

de facto complainant has married accused and now she is

residing with the accused happily. Since, the accused and

the de facto complainant have compromised the dispute

with each other, it will be a futile exercise, if the accused

is subjected to trial, since, the probability of his conviction

is remote and bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at

between the parties, the continuation of criminal

proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr1 has

held at para Nos.31 to 35 as under:

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(2014) 6 SCC 466

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.

32. After having clarified the legal position in the manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at hand.

33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.

34. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view.

35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

We order accordingly.''

(emphasis supplied)

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana2 has held at

para Nos.8, 9 and 10 as under:

"8. Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.

9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside."

11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal

Petition No.6214/2022 considering the ratios laid down in

J.Ramesh Kamath and others vs. Mohana Kurupt and

2024 Live Law (SC) 391

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

others3, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another4,

Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another5, Srinivasan Iyender vs. Bimla Devi

Agarwal6, permitted the parties to compromise in similar

terms and in Criminal Petition No.101756/2024,

considering the above said ratio laid down, has quashed

the proceedings against the accused.

12. At this juncture, since there are number of

judgments of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which

have quashed the proceedings on account of marriage of

the victim with the accused. Hence, I deem it proper to

follow those judgments and quash the proceedings against

the petitioner.

13. Therefore, in the light of marriage having taken

place between the victim and accused, more particularly,

3 (2016) 12 SCC 179

(2012) 10 SCC 303

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

6 (2019) 4 SCC 456

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

the marriage being registered and a certificate being

issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be

legally wedded husband and wife, it shows that the couple

are leading a happy marital life. If the victim is going to

turn hostile in the trial at a later point in time and the

petitioner gets acquitted of all the offences, sword of crime

would turn to sword of the accused. It is not the end result

that is painful or otherwise, but the process in the criminal

justice system that generates such pain. In the teeth of

these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would

shut its doors to the couple who are married, the entire

proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. It is

therefore, I deem it appropriate, to accept the settlement

between the parties and terminate the proceedings qua

the petitioner.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is disposed of.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045

HC-KAR

The impugned proceedings in S.C. No.643/2024 on

the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO), Belagavi insofar as the

petitioner - accused is concerned, stands quashed.