Allowed

Shri Naveen H.S v. the State Represented by

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/13341/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FC trial proceedings for POCSO and IPC offences after parties filed a compromise. Court noted survivor attained majority, child born, and relationship consensual, relying on Tarun Vaishnav precedent to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned Special Case (POCSO) No.13/2023 proceedings pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

Shri Naveen H.S Vs the State Represented by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37481 WP No. 13341 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13341 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI NAVEEN H.S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SHIVALINGAIAH, R/AT HAROHALLI KOTE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA, NEAR MANIKANTHA PETROL BUNK, RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA-562 117.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA A, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATION HOUSE OFFICER BIDIDI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 117.

¶13

CHILDREN WELFARE COMMITTEE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 117 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, SRI.P SHANMUGA SUNDARAM,

¶14

SMT. BHAVYA A N, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, W/O SHRI NAVEEN H S, D/O NAGARAJ. M, R/A HAROHALLI KOTE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA-562 117.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:37481 WP No. 13341 of 2023

¶17

SMT. BABY, W/O NAGARAJ M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A ABBANAKUPPE VILLAGE(COLONY) BIDADI HOBLI, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT AND TALUK

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-2 SRI. BASAVARAJU B, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH FIR, IN CRIME NO.85/2022 IN BIDADI POLICE STATION, WHICH IS MARKED IN ANNEXURE-D, AND FIR MARKED IN ANNEXURE-F IN CRIME NO. 196/2022 AND CHARGE-SHEET REGISTERED IN SPL.C(POCSO) NO. 13/2023. I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA, BY HAROHALLI POLICE STATION VIDE ANNEXURE-G FOR OFFENCES PUBISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 AND 376 (2) (I) AND SECTION 4 AND 6 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 363 of IPC and Sections and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused herein forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault on the survivor, who was a minor as on the date of incident.

¶25

The parties are present before this court represented by their respective counsels and have filed a compromise petition stating that the sexual intercourse between them was consensual one and their marriage has been registered before the Registrar of Marriage, Kanakapura on

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37481 WP No. 13341 of 2023

¶27

12.5.2023, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition. They further submit that from the said wedlock, a female child is born on 17.5.2022. The birth certificate to this effect is annexed to this petition.

¶28

A perusal of the registered marriage certificate and the birth certificate depict that the marriage of the accused has been solemnized with the survivor and a child is born on 17.5.2022. The survivor was a minor as on the date when the sexual intercourse and as of today, is aged more than 18 years and her marriage was solemnized after she had attained the age of 18 years.

¶29

In identical circumstances, the High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of Tarun Vaishnav –vs- State of Rajasthan, at paras 18 and 19 has held as follows:

¶30

"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:-

¶31

(i) an adolescent girl of tender age (16 years) has fallen in love with a boy of 22 years;

¶32

(ii) both being immature, apparently driven by momentary emotions have fallen prey to lust, surpassing social, moral and legal limits;

¶33

(iii) the complainant is the police and the girl or her family are neither aggrieved party nor complainant;

¶34

(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;

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37481 WP No. 13341 of 2023

¶36

(v) their fornication though may be without legal and moral sanction, has resulted in child birth;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(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;

¶39

(viii) and also because, the basic ingredients of retributive theory of punishment -"avenge for the person wronged" is completely absent.

¶40

Faced with such situation and upon appraisal of the overall circumstances, as an exceptional case, this Court is persuaded to allow the petition, as prayed. The impugned FIR No.0260/2022 registered at Police Station Devnagar, Jodhpur City (West) against the petitioner, is hereby, quashed not only on the basis of compromise, but also for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and what has transpired during the course of hearing."

¶41

The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan was taken up in an appeal, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in SLP (Crl.) No. 1890/2023 dated 3.3.2023.

¶42

The survivor was aged about 17 years as on the date of incident and as of today, she is more than 18 years. If the impugned proceeding is allowed to be continued, it will likely result in incarceration of the accused and it would cause more harm and misery rather than securing ends of justice. To protect the interest of the survivor and also the child, it would

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37481 WP No. 13341 of 2023

¶44

be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned proceeding in Spl. Case (POCSO) No.13/2023 pending on the file of the learned I Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara, stands quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

BKM

Shri Naveen H.S v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Naveen H.S v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.P. Narayanadas Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Sadiq Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jesus Sudhir Lall Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Suhas. T. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhargav B M Vs State of Karnataka