Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Kallappa Harijan vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
CRL.P No. 103895 of 2025
C/W CRL.P. No.103896 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103895 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103896 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P. NO. 103895 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATH S/O KALLAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HARIJAN ONI, MANAGUNDI,
DHARWAD, PIN-580 007.
2. KALLAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. MADAR ONI, MANAGUNDI,
Digitally
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580 007.
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
S Location:
HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. MALLAVVA
DHARWAD
BENCH
W/O KALLAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. MADAR ONI, MANAGUNDI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580 007.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DHARWAD RURAL P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
CRL.P No. 103895 of 2025
C/W CRL.P. No.103896 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD, PIN-580 011.
2. XXXX
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT, CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.SC NO.61/2023
AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF
PROCESS DATED 11/09/2023 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
AND THESE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN
CRIME.170/2023 REGISTERED BY DHARWAD RURAL P.S., FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC,
UNDER SECTIONS 17 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE ACT 2012 AND UNDER SECTIONS 9
AND 11 OF THE CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRICT ACT PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT: DHARWAD.
IN CRL. P. NO.103896 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
1. KARIYAPPA S/O RAMAPPA MUGALI,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HARIJAN KERI, KALAGERI,
VTC, DHARWAD, PIN-580 007.
2. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O KARIYAPPA MUGALI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HARIJAN KERI, KALAGERI,
VTC, DHARWAD, PIN-580 007.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
CRL.P No. 103895 of 2025
C/W CRL.P. No.103896 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DHARWAD RURAL P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD, PIN-580 011.
2. XXXX
AGE. 21 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELAGERI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 007.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT, CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.SC NO.61/2023
AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF
PROCESS DATED 11/09/2023 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 IN
CRIME.170/2023 REGISTERED BY DHARWAD RURAL P.S., FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC,
UNDER SECTIONS 17 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE ACT 2012 AND UNDER SECTIONS 9
AND 11 OF THE CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRICT ACT PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT: DHARWAD.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
CRL.P No. 103895 of 2025
C/W CRL.P. No.103896 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Special S.C. No.61 of 2023 pending
before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Dharwad, arising out of Crime No.170 of 2023
registered by Dharwad Rural Police Station, Dharwad for offences
punishable under Sections 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restraint
Act, Sections 17 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC, are
before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the
aforesaid cases against them.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the
petitions jointly submit that dispute between the parties has
been amicably settled at the intervention of the elders and well
wishers of the parties after charge sheet was filed in the present
case. Accused No.1 has now married the victim girl, who is a
major. Their marriage is also registered. Pendency of this case
has been not only causing hardship to the couple to live a happy
married life, but the same is also causing hardship to their family
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
members including the other accused in the present case. They
submit that from the wedlock of accused No.1 and respondent
No.2, two children are born to them and therefore, in the
interest of justice, prayer made in the application filed by the
parties seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged
offences for which the accused have been charge sheeted, and
also the prayer made in these two petitions may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned HCGP has brought to the notice
of this Court that the petitioners have been charge sheeted for
non-compoundable offences.
4. The parties to these two petitions have filed
application under Section 320(2) read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking permission of this Court to compound the
alleged offences for which charge sheet has been filed against
the petitioners and the said applications are signed by the parties
and also by their respective advocates. The applications are also
supported by the affidavit of the parties. Accused No.1 is the son
of accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of
the victim girl. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and the victim girl are present
before the Court in person. The parties, who are present before
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
the Court are identified by their respective advocates. Parties
have stated that settlement arrived between them is voluntary,
without their being any undue influence and coercion. Along with
the application filed by the parties seeking permission of this
Court to compound the offences for which the petitioners are
charge sheeted, the Marriage Registration Certificate of accused
No.1 with the victim girl is also produced. The application which
is supported by the affidavit of the parties is taken on record. In
paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the application filed under Section
320(2) of Cr.P.C. it is stated as follows:
"3. Due to intervention of the parents and
elders of both the families, the petitioners and
respondent No.2 have settled the matter amicably
out of Court.
4. The respondent No.2 and accused No.1
have got married on 16.01.2024 and also on
13.02.2024 their marriage was registered and they
are having two children at present they are residing
together.
5. The parties have now amicably resolved
their differences without any coercion, undue
influence, or external pressure.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
6. The respondent No.2 hereby
unconditionally withdraws and discharges all
allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR
and subsequent proceedings and has no objection to
the quashing in Spl. S.C. No.61/2023 pending on the
file of the Hon'ble II Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Spl. Judge, Dharwad.
7. The settlement between the parties is
voluntary, and no monetary or other consideration
has been exchanged. Both parties undertake not to
raise any further claims or disputes arising out of the
subject matter of this case."
5. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the victim girl, it is
stated as follows:
"3. I state that the 2nd respondent and the
petitioners No.1 to 3 are husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law, after the incident, there are no
instances of any quarrel by the petitioners and in
view of the same the relatives, well-wishers and
elders advised to settle the issues and that today on
my volition, without there being any coercion, threat
or force by anybody filed joint memo."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN
SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1 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 GUJARAT2 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 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
almost identical circumstances in the case of MOHAMMAD
WASEEM AHAMAD Vs. STATE3, 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
(2012) 10 SCC 303
(2017) 9 SCC 641
AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
pending before the Special Court for similar offences. In the
case of AARUSH JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER4, a Co-ordinate 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 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
Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
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".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
ANR.5 in paragraph No.6 has held as follows:
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the
offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a
grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
2025 INSC 819
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
proceedings involving such offences on the ground of
settlement between the parties is discouraged and
should not be permitted lightly. However, the power
of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the
ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula
and must be exercised with reference to the facts of
each case."
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
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of GIAN SINGH and
PARBATBHAI (supra), 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 entire proceedings.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH6, 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.
10. Accused No.1 has now married the victim girl after
she has attained the age of majority and they also have children.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and
accused Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the victim girl. It is
stated in the affidavit that accused and victim girl are all now
residing together happily and the parties who were present
before the Court have stated that pendency of this case has been
causing hardship to them and therefore, they intend to give a
quietus to their inter se dispute. Under the circumstances, I am
of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers
of this Court needs to be exercised to do complete justice to the
parties who are before this Court. Accordingly, the following:
AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13407
HC-KAR
ORDER
Criminal Petitions are allowed.
The entire proceedings in Special S.C. No.61 of 2023
pending before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, arising out of Crime No.170
of 2023 registered by Dharwad Rural Police Station, Dharwad for
offences punishable under Sections 9 and 11 of Child Marriage
Restraint Act, Sections 17 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376
of IPC, as against the petitioners herein, is quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:BCK
