Devaraj Alias Devendrappa S/O Shivanand Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:777 CRL.P No. 100010 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100010 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DEVARAJ @ DEVENDRAPPA S/O. SHIVANAND YASHAPPANAVAR, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MULAGUND, TQ./DIST. GADAG. 582101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MULAGUND POLICE STATION, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG, R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:33 +0530

¶12

MAHANTAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SUNAGAR AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTI ONI, MULAGUND, TQ/DIST. GADAG-582117.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C,NO. 51/2024 DATED 18.06.2024 FILED IN ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN SC NO. 51/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 363, 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND 6, 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:777 CRL.P No. 100010 of 2025

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2) of IPC and Sections 6, 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, is before this Court.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant’s daughter was aged 17 years 8 months went out of her house at Mulagund saying that she needs to take photo copies of her documents, but however, she did not return back to the home. Therefore, the complainant lodged a missing complaint. The complainant’s daughter along with the accused were found in the house of a relative. The police after recording the statement of the witnesses submitted the charge sheet.

¶21

In the charge sheet, it is alleged that the survivor and the accused were in love by inducing the survivor that he would marry and take care of her, and that he took her to Bengaluru, and resided in a rented house for two months nineteen days. During that period, the accused had sexual intercourse fully knowing that the survivor was a minor.

¶22

The accused, survivor and the father of the survivor are present before this Court.

¶23

The father of the survivor has filed an affidavit stating that the marriage of the daughter with the accused was solemnized on 3.11.2024, and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:777 CRL.P No. 100010 of 2025

¶25

Registrar concerned, and from the said wedlock, they have a male child born on 12.2.2024, and at present they are leading marital life cordially in the matrimonial home.

¶26

The statement of the survivor under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded by the Trial Court, and in the said statement, she has not supported the case of the petitioner. The survivor was aged 17 years 8 months as of the date of the incident, which clearly implies that she was in relationship with the accused and went outside from the parental home voluntarily.

¶27

The complainant and the survivor, who are present before this Court, have no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶28

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:

¶29

"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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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;

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:777 CRL.P No. 100010 of 2025

¶35

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

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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;

¶38

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

¶39

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."

¶40

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.

¶41

Though the survivor was the minor as on the date of incident, however, having regard to the fact that, the marriage of the survivor with the accused having been solemnized, and the survivor is aged more than 18 years as on the date of the marriage, if the petitioner-accused is subjected to trial it would result in incarceration of the petitioner accused resulting in causing misery

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:777 CRL.P No. 100010 of 2025

¶44

and agony to the survivor rather than securing justice. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned proceedings in SC No.51/2024 pending on the file of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶49

BKM

¶50

Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Devaraj Alias Devendrappa S/O Shivanand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaraj Alias Devendrappa S/O Shivanand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath T Vs State of Karnataka by Electronic City Police

Hameedbasha S/O Imamsab Vs Vinod S/O Rachappa Sangari

Mrs. Rukhiya W/O Late Rasheedullah Vs Mr. Abdul Razaq S/O Late Dastagir Saheb Nagarchi

M/S Perk Inn International Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Developm

Fareeda Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Shri Mahantagouda Devaraddi Vs Karnataka State Government