High Court quashed criminal proceedings against accused for offences under IPC 376(2)(n), 506 and POCSO Act. Court allowed compromise and noted parties married after victim turned majority, ruling further trial an abuse of process.
Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in Spl.C No.200/2021 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:32965 CRL.P No. 2297 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2297 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED BASHEER S/O MR. SULAIMAN R/AT NO.2-117B, NEAR PARLIA MASJID BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT NO 1-112, BALIKE MANE BADAGAHITTILU, BADAGA BELLURU BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 219.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D L MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN SPL.CASE .NO.200/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376(2)(n),506 OF IPC AND SEC.4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC- II (POCSO) AT D.K., MANGALURU AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:32965 CRL.P No. 2297 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner-accused is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of POCSO Act.
record.
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;
(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.
of compromise, but also for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and what has transpired during the course of hearing."
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
HR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under IPC 376(2)(n) IPC 506 and POCSO Act should be quashed upon the marriage of the minor survivor and withdrawal of complaint by both parties.
Whether the continuation of trial would amount to abuse of process of law given the subsequent marriage and consensual nature of the relationship.
Whether inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash FIR and charge sheet in cases involving inter-familial disputes resolved amicable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tarun Vaishnav vs. State of RajasthanExplained¶28
Tarun Vaishnav vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Rajasthan vs. Tarun VaishnavRelied on¶41
SLP (Crl.) No. 1890/2023
4 provisions across 3 enactments
MR. MOHAMMED BASHEER
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MR. MOHAMMED SALEEM
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
