[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Chethan Melinamani vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
CRL.P No. 1804 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI CHETHAN MELINAMANI
S/O KAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/A AMBEDKAR GALLI
KANVI KARAVINAKOPPA POST
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI
DISTRICT - 591 309.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI N. DEVENDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPUR, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by 2. XXX
NANDINI M ...RESPONDENTS
S
Location: (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPP, HCGP FOR R-1;
HIGH SRI SRINATH B.V, ADV., FOR R-2)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.22/2025 LATER REGISTERED
AS SPL.SC.NO.77/2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1 (POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPUR, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 363,344,376(2)(n) OF IPC, U/S 5(L),5(J)(ii),6 OF
POCSO ACT, 2012, U/S 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE
ACT, 2006, AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
CRL.P No. 1804 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal petition
filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the
entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.77 of 2025 pending
before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTSC-I(POCSOA),
Chikkaballapura arising out of Crime No.22 of 2025 registered
by Chikkaballapura Police Station, Chikkaballapura for offences
punishable under Sections 363, 344, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section
5(L), 5(J)(ii) and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. FIR in the present case was registered against the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences, based on the first
information dated 18.03.2025, received from the respondent
no. 2 herein, who is the elder sister of the victim girl, who was
aged about 17 years 6 months as on the date of registration of
FIR. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been
filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and a case
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
has been registered against him before the Court of Additional
District and Session Judge and FTSC-1, Chikkaballapura in
Spl.S.C.No.77 of 2025. With a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in the aforesaid case, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that,
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled at the
intervention of well-wishers and elders of both the parties and
the petitioner has married the victim girl on 25.09.2025 after
she has attained the age of majority. They submit that,
marriage certificate of the petitioner and the victim girl is
produced along with the petition at Annexure-E. They also
submit that, parties have filed affidavit before this Court with a
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in view of the
settlement arrived between the parties. The parties who are
present before the Court are identified by their respective
advocates and it is submitted that, settlement arrived between
the parties is voluntary without there being any undue
influence or coercion. It is also submitted that, pendency of this
petition has been causing untold hardship to the petitioner and
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
the victim girl, who are now married and living together. The
petitioner, victim girl, her elder sister, who is the first informant
in the present case and the father of the victim girl have filed
separate affidavits before this Court. In the affidavit of the
victim girl, at paragraph nos.4 to 6, it is stated as follows: -
"4. I state that, during the proceedings, the victim
attained majority and we got married on 25.09.2025
registered in the office of marriage Registrar, Belagavi
South bearing document no.BES - HM01346 - 2025 -
dated 10.11.2025. Further due to the intervention of the
elders and well wishers of our respective well wishers we
have settled the matter out of the Court.
5. I state that I am married to the victim and we
have been living together under the same roof since
25.09.2025.
6. I state that, I have not filed any other
application seeking similar relief before this Hon'ble Court
along with main petition."
5. Similar averments are found in the affidavit filed by
the petitioner, first informant and also in the affidavit of the
father of the victim. Charge sheet has been filed in the present
case for non-compoundable offences. The parties have now
settled the inter se dispute between themselves. The petitioner
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
and the victim girl, who has now attained the age of majority
are married and their marriage was also registered before the
Office of Marriage Registrar, Belagavi South on 25.09.2025.
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
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641
3 AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
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.
7. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
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 due to lack of knowledge of consequence of
law. xxxxxxxxxxxx".
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
MAHARASHTRA AND ANR5 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."
9. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
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.
10. 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.
11. The parties who are before the Court, including the
petitioner and the victim girl who are now married, have
submitted before this Court that the pendency of the case has
been causing hardship to the family members as well as to the
petitioner and the victim girl to live a normal family life. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11805
HC-KAR
wherein the inherent powers of this Court is to be exercised to
do complete justice to the parties, who are before this Court.
12. Accordingly, the following :-
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceedings in
Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.77 of 2025 pending before
the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTSC-
I(POCSOA), Chikkaballapura arising out of
Crime No.22 of 2025 registered by
Chikkaballapura Police Station, Chikkaballapura
for offences punishable under Sections 363,
344, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5(L), 5(J)(ii) and
6 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1
