[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Munendra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16959 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNENDRA
S/O GANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/A MANCHANABALE VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVENDRA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by BENGALURU - 560 001
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. SRI DYAVAPPA G.D.
KARNATAKA S/O LATE DODDAMUNILAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A GANGANAMIDDHE WARD NO 7
CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. ABHILASH KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.55/2022
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
CRL.P No. 16959 of 2025
HC-KAR
LATER REGISTERED AS SPL.S.C.NO.99/2022 ON THE FILE
OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1
(POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
363,343,376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
AND SEC. OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006
AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused is before this Court in this petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash
the entire proceedings in Spl. SC No. 99/2022, pending
on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-
I, Chikkaballapura arising out of Crime No.55/2022
registered by Chikkaballapur Women Police Station,
Chikaballapura for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 9 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.55/2022 was registered by
Chikkaballpura Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura,
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
initially for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC
against the petitioner herein based on first information
dated 15.05.2022 received from respondent No.2
herein, who is the father of the victim girl, who was
aged 17 years, 10 months and 29 days as on the date
of registration of FIR. In the first information, it is
mentioned that the daughter of the respondent No.2
who had gone to college on 07.05.2022 had not
returned home. Efforts made to trace her had failed.
Since the first informant suspected the hands of the
petitioner, FIR was registered against the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC in Crime
No.55/2022. During the course of investigation, the
petitioner and the victim were traced together and
brought back. After completing investigation, charge-
sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the
aforesaid offences and he is now being tried for the
charge sheeted offences before the jurisdictional
Special Court in Spl. SC No.99/ 2022.
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsels for the parties jointly
submit that the dispute between the parties has been
amicably settled. The victim girl and the petitioner are
married and the victim girl has given birth to a male
child during the pendency of the case on 28.03.2024.
They submit that pendency of the case has been
causing hardship to the parties as well as their
relatives, to lead a normal family life. The petitioner
who is the sole breadwinner of the family is now taken
to the custody for the reason that he had not appeared
before the trial Court on the date of hearing. They
submit that the dispute between the parties has been
settled by the intervention of elders and well-wishers of
both the parties and there is no coercion and undue
influence on any party for settling the dispute. They
also submit that parties intend to give a quietus to
their interse dispute and live peacefully in future.
5. Learned counsels for the parties have also
filed affidavit of the victim girl, her father and the
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
affidavit of the mother of the petitioner. In the affidavit
of the victim girl, in paragraph Nos.2 to 9, it is stated
as follows:
"2. On the basis of the complaint given by the
2nd respondent (my father), the 1st respondent
has registered a case in Crime No.55/2022 for
the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC
later registered as Spl.SC No.99/2022 on the file
of Additional District and Sessions Judge & FTSC-
1 [POCSO], Chikkaballapur for the offences
punishable under Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of
IPC and Section 6 or Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against
the petitioner herein (accused therein).
3. At the time of commission of the offence, I
was a minor.
4. The marriage of mine and the petitioner
was solemnized on 11.05.2022 at Masthi
Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Malur Taluk, Kolar
District.
5. As myself and the petitioner have settled in
life by marrying and as such continuation of the
proceedings in Spl. SC No.99/2022 is futile
exercise.
6. I gave birth to a male child on 28.03.2024
at District Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur
and the father of the male child being the
petitioner.
7. I state that the petitioner has filed the
above criminal petition seeking quashing of the
FIR in Crime No.55/2022 later registered as Spl.
SC No.99/2023 on the file of Additional District
and Sessions Judge & FTSC-1 [POSCO].
Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under
Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006.
8. I state that during the course of these
proceedings with the intervention of the elders
and well wishers of respective family the dispute
between me and the petitioner was settled out of
Court.
9. I state that, neither the petitioner nor the
petitioner's mother have not exerted any
pressure on me."
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
brought to the notice of this Court that offences for
which petitioner has been charge sheeted are non-
compoundable offences. The material on record would
go to show that the petitioner who was the victim girl
aged 17 years, 10 months, 29 days as on the date of
registration of FIR, was in love with the petitioner and
she had voluntarily left her house and had gone with
the petitioner on 07.05.2022 and thereafter, they got
married on 11.05.2022. Material now produced before
the Court would go to show that victim girl has given
birth to a boy child on 28.03.2024 and petitioner is the
father of the said child. Victim girl who is married to
the petitioner has attained the age of majority and
thereafter, she has given birth to a male child on
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
28.03.2024. In the affidavit of the victim girl, she has
stated that she and the petitioner are living together
happily as husband and wife. The parties intend to give
a quietus to the inter se dispute and live peacefully in
future.
7. 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
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641
3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
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
pending before the Special Court for similar offences.
8. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law.
xxxxxxxxxxxx".
9. 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 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."
10. 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
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.
11. 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.
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that it is a fit case where this Court requires to
exercise its inherent powers to do complete justice to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10533
HC-KAR
the parties who are before the Court. Accordingly, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Entire proceedings in Spl.SC No.99/2022
pending before the Court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge & FTSC-I, Chikkaballapura arising
out of Crime No. 55/2022 registered by
Chikkaballapura Women police station,
Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable
under Section 363, 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section
9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and
Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the
petitioner herein are hereby quashed.
(iii) The jail authorities are directed to forthwith
release the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
PSJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
