Basavaraj S/O Siddappa Chincehwadi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3840 CRL.P No. 100831 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100831 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BASAVARAJ S/O. SIDDAPPA CHINCEHWADI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NOGANIHAL, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.

¶7

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. TIPPANNA GASTI AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDAGINATTI, TQ. HUKKERI DIST. BELAGAVI-591254.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. S.M.MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

B K MAHENDRAKUMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by B KMAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.01 12:14:20 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE POLICE INSPECTOR HUKKERI, TALUK. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591309, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT. DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶14

SHRI. SOMALING S/O. BASSAPPA RAMASHETTY (FATHER OF VICTIM), AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AT FACTORY, R/O. HAVAL NAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, MACCHE, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590014.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3840 CRL.P No. 100831 of 2025

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION OF THESE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN HUKKERI P.S. CR.NO.173/2022 U/S 376(2) (i) (n), 376(3) OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, BELAGAVI, IN SPL.CASE NO.296/2022.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1/ State and Learned counsel Sri. S.B. Deyannavar has filed power on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶23

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, who have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Section 4, 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶24

The prosecution alleges that on 24.08.2022, the complainant had taken his minor daughter for treatment to the hospital, wherein the doctor had advised for blood and urine test, after which, the doctor opined that she is pregnant. The complainant had enquired as to the cause of it, whereafter the victim had disclosed that her uncle accused No.1 committed sexual intercourse with her, and later when the victim was going to school, accused No.2 stated that he is in love with her and induced her to have sexual intercourse and thereafter, committed forcible sexual

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3840 CRL.P No. 100831 of 2025

¶27

assault. The DNA report indicated that a child born to the survivor was on account of sexual intercourse with accused No.2.

¶28

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, survivor and defacto complainant are present before the Court and filed joint affidavit stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and in terms of settlement, the complainant and survivor have agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioners, and accused No.2 is willing to marry the survivor soon after she attains the age of majority. The affidavit is taken on record.

¶29

The survivor was aged about 16 years accused No.2 was aged about 20 years as of the date of the accident. The survivor, who is present before the Court, submitted that she is depending on the accused No.2 to meet her daily needs. If the petitioners are subjected to trial, it may lead to incarceration and the survivor will be put to misery and agony rather than securing justice.

¶30

The object of the POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual abuse and not to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents, who may have engaged in sexual intercourse without fully understanding its consequences. The accused No.2 and the survivor belong to a lower socio-economic background, with limited access to information and awareness, which may have deprived them of a proper understanding of the legal and social implications of their actions.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3840 CRL.P No. 100831 of 2025

¶33

In light of the fact that, the sexual intercourse between the accused No.2 and the survivor was of consensual one, it would be a futile exercise if the petitioners are subjected to trial, since the probability of the conviction is remote and bleak. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Spl. Case No.296/2022 pending on the file of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Belagavi, is hereby quashed. Bail bond, if any, stands discharged.

¶35

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 217

Basavaraj S/O Siddappa Chincehwadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj S/O Siddappa Chincehwadi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Altaf Hussain Hallur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin Menakudale Vs the State of Karnataka

Keerthi Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Rswm Limited Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Mahesh S/O Siddappa Hiragannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Shyamid Sab S/O Husen Sab Vs the State of Karnataka