Allowed¶87

Bibijan W/O Babusab Anandwale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025CRL.P/104390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS 2023; S.370 IPC trafficking; S.317 IPC; S.363 IPC kidnapping; S.34 IPC common intention; biological mother of infant; child given for adoption; allegation of selling child; Children Helpline complaint; Crime No.52/2023 Sub Urban Police Station Hubballi; earlier Crime No.27/2023 under S.363 IPC; FIR quashed at preliminary stage; Karnataka High Court Dharwad; NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614; CRL.P No.104390 of 2025; Justice S. Rachiah; petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of respondent-police (Sub Urban Police Station, Hubballi) for the offences under Sections 370, 317, 363 read with Section 34 of IPC quashed. ¶87

Bibijan W/O Babusab Anandwale Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of respondent-police (Sub Urban Police Station, Hubballi) for the offences under Sections 370, 317, 363 read with Section 34 of IPC quashed.

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.52/2023 of Sub Urban Police Station, Hubballi (offences under Sections 370, 317, 363 r/w 34 IPC) and all further proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner, accused No.3 and the biological mother of the child, is concerned.

¶47

Court's answer

On careful reading of the provisions reproduced in the FIR, the ingredients of Sections 370, 317 and 363 IPC cannot be applicable to the petitioner; therefore the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the relief prayed for, and the proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 are quashed.

¶84

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the petitioner, being the biological mother, abandoned the child and took no steps to secure her either by complaint or by searching for the child, which would show her intention to sell the child; the connection between this observation and the ultimate quashing is not spelt out in the order.¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.104390 of 2025 (under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS, 2023), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (S. Rachiah, J.), decided 17 November 2025 [NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614]. The petitioner, accused No.3, stated to be the biological mother of an infant given for adoption to accused Nos.1 and 2, sought quashing of the FIR in Crime No.52/2023 of Sub Urban Police Station, Hubballi (Sections 370, 317, 363 r/w 34 IPC) and all further proceedings. The FIR followed a second complaint dated 02.04.2023 by the same complainant (a Children Helpline member) alleging the petitioner had sold the child to accused Nos.1 and 2; an earlier Crime No.27/2023 under S.363 IPC had been registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. Holding that the ingredients of Sections 370, 317 and 363 IPC were not applicable to the petitioner, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in Crime No.52/2023. The Court also recorded that the petitioner had abandoned the child and made no effort to secure her, which 'would show her intention to sell the child'.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104390 OF 2025

¶8

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BIBIJAN W/O. BABUSAB ANANDWALE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. DHARWAD COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, TIMMASAGAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATARAO N.DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶16

BY HUBLI SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

JAYASHREE W/O. RAMACHANDRA PISE, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. MUGAD VILLAGE-580007, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE FIR/COMPLAINT IN SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALI CRIME NO.52/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 370, 317, 363 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶31

The petitioner/accused No.3 is said to be the biological mother of the child which was given for adoption to accused Nos.1 and 2 is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of respondent-police for the offences under Sections 370, 317, 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C).

¶32

Brief facts of the case:

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by one Smt. Jayashree stated to be working as a Member in the Children Helpline team. As per the averments of the complaint on 15.03.2023, around 11.47 a.m an unknown person called Children Helpline stating one Smt. Sheela Hiremath resident of S.M. Krishna Nagar, Old Hubli, was taking care of infant as a guardian / adopted mother without having valid adoption deed. On

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

receiving the said information on 17.03.2023 around 2.00 p.m the complainant went to S.M.Krishna Nagara and collected information about Sheela Hiremath. As per the said information she has been informed that the said Sheela Hiremath was working as an employer of Anganawadi and she had intended to take valid adoption of the child.

¶37

Further, on 18.03.2023 around 1.00 p.m she was informed that Basavaraj Hiremath who is the husband of Sheela Hiremath was an auto driver, on 06.03.2023 around 8.00 p.m the child was left unattended in his auto. After coming to know that child was left in the said auto, he brought the child and he was taking care of the child.

¶38

On coming to know the said fact, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that Smt. Sheela Hiremath W/o Basavaraj Hiremath was taking care of the child by abducting / kidnapping from the lawful guardianship.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The respondent – Police registered a case against Smt.Sheela Basavaraj Hiremath and Sri.Basavaraj Hiremath in Crime No.27/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C.

¶42

Later, on coming to know the real fact, one more complaint was lodged against Smt.Sheela Basavaraj Hiremath, Sri.Basavaraj Hiremath and Smt. Bibijan on 02.04.2023 stating that the petitioner herein had sold the said child to accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the respondent – Police registered a separate F.I.R in Crime No.52/2023. Hence, the present petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings against her.

¶43

Heard Sri.Venkatarao N. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Praveen Y. Devaraddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The contention of the learned counsel for the

¶47

petitioner is that the petitioner is the biological mother of the child, the ingredients of the provisions under Sections 370, 317 and 363 do not attract against the petitioner. Therefore, the F.I.R filed against the petitioner has to be quashed.

¶48

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that, F.I.R is a basis for investigation, the investigation has to be conducted as to whether she had sold the child to accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to abandon the child. Since, this is a preliminary stage, F.I.R cannot be quashed, as there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner. Making such submissions he prays to reject the petition.

¶49

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that, initially, a complaint came to be registered on 18.03.2023 stating that accused Nos.1 and 2

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶51

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

had kidnapped the child from the lawful custody of the parents. However, on 02.04.2023, the same complainant lodged another complaint by including the petitioner as one of the accused stating that all the accused persons were committed offences which is stated in the F.I.R.

¶54

Now, it is relevant to refer the provisions enumerated in the F.I.R for consideration.

¶55

“ Section 370 of IPC – Trafficking of person:

¶56

(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by—

¶57

1. using threats, or

¶58

2. using force, or any other form of

¶59

coercion, or

¶60

3. by abduction, or

¶61

4. by practising fraud, or deception, or

¶62

5. by abuse of power, or

¶63

6. by inducement, including the giving or

¶64

receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Explanation 1. The expression “exploitation” shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.

¶68

Explanation 2. The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking.

¶69

(2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶70

(3) Where the offence involves the trafficking1 of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶71

(4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶72

(5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

(6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶77

(7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶78

Section 363 of IPC-Punishment for kidnapping:

¶79

Whoever kidnaps any person from (India) or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶80

On careful reading of the provisions stated above, it makes clear that, the persons who contravenes the above said provisions shall be punishable with the punishment prescribed for the respective offences.

¶81

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15614 CRL.P No. 104390 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

In the present case the petitioner is none other than the biological mother of the infant/child. She has abandoned a child and she has not taken any steps to secure the child either by way of filing the complaint or searching for the child. That would show her intention to sell the child.

¶84

Be that as it may, the ingredients of the above said provisions of which an F.I.R has been registered cannot be applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶85