Allowed¶49

Sri. Harish. R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025CRL.P/15461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of POCSO/child-marriage prosecution (Ss.363, 342, 376 IPC; S.4 POCSO Act 2012; S.9 PCMA Karnataka Amendment; FIR Crime No.0215/2023 / Spl.SC No.37/2024, Chikkaballapur) after victim attained majority (13.01.2025), withdrew allegations, and married the accused (18.05.2025, registered 05.07.2025); settlement affidavits; victim's retraction as PW1; inherent power under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS; Karnataka High Court follows Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of UP, 2025 SCC Online SC 614; proceedings quashed, petition allowed, I.A.No.1/2025 disposed; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; December 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37/2024 pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. ¶49

Sri. Harish. R Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37/2024 pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Spl. S.C.No.37/2024 (FIR in Crime No.0215/2023) against the petitioner should be quashed, given that the parties have settled, the victim has withdrawn the allegations, and the victim, after attaining majority, has married the petitioner and raises no objection to closure.

¶38

Court's answer

The victim, examined as PW1 before the trial Court, categorically denied that the petitioner married her when she was a minor and denied the alleged sexual assault committed against her.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

This Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of UP and others (2025 SCC Online SC 614), wherein proceedings in an identical situation were quashed.

¶41

Key takeaways

Having regard to the facts and circumstances (settlement, victim now married to and residing with the petitioner), continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose and would only prolong the distress of the parties, particularly the victim girl.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNNS as printed) by the sole accused seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.0215/2023, later registered as Spl.SC No.37/2024 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 (POCSO), Chikkaballapur, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 342 and 376 IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016, alleging marriage of a minor victim (below 18 years) and penetrative sexual assault. Before the High Court, affidavits of the petitioner and the victim were filed showing that the victim attained majority on 13.01.2025, married the petitioner on 18.05.2025, and the marriage was registered on 05.07.2025 at Devanahalli; the matter was settled out of Court. The victim, present in Court, stated she had married the petitioner and had no objection to closure, and in her deposition as PW1 before the trial Court she had categorically denied the minor-marriage and the sexual assault. Following the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of UP and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 614, where proceedings in an identical situation were quashed, the Court held that continuation of the trial would serve no meaningful purpose and would only prolong the distress of the parties, particularly the victim now married and residing with the petitioner. Held: petition allowed; entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37/2024 quashed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of. (Mohammad Nawaz, J.; decided 05.12.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51239 CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15461 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. HARISH R S/O RAMANNA AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A DINNE SOLURU VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DEVENDRA N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERESANDRA POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENALURU-560 001

¶15

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE ANANTHAPPA AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A BANDAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKALLU HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. BHAVANI P.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51239 CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0215/2023 LATER REGISTERED AS SPL.SC NO.37/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC - 1 (POCSO) CHIKKABALLAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 342 AND 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 AT ANNEXURE-A COUPLED WITH.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner/sole accused has preferred this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl. S.C.No.37/2024 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.

¶25

Petitioner is facing trial for the charges framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 363, 342 and 376 of IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016.

¶26

Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:51239 CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has married the minor victim aged below 18 years and committed penetrative sexual assault on her against her wish.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that the matter has been settled and victim has withdrawn all the allegations and she is now married and living with the petitioner. Affidavits of the petitioner and victim are filed. In the affidavit of the victim, it is stated that after attaining majority on 13.01.2025, she has married the petitioner on 18.05.2025 and the marriage has been registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Devanahalli on 05.07.2025. It is stated that due to the intervention of the elders and well-wishers of both the families, the matter has been settled out of the Court.

¶32

The affidavits are placed on record.

¶33

Petitioner and the victim as well as victim’s

¶34

mother/respondent No.2 are present before the Court.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:51239 CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Victim submits that she is now married to the petitioner and living together and she has no objection to close the proceedings.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶40

drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of the victim given before the trial court, wherein she was examined as PW1. The victim has categorically denied that the petitioner married her when she was a minor and denied the alleged sexual assault committed against her.

¶41

The Hon'ble Apex Court in an identical situation, in Mahesh Mukund Patel .v. State of UP and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, quashed the proceedings, observing that the parties are happily married and therefore no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the parties.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶43

the case, the continuation of the trial would not serve any

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51239 CRL.P No. 15461 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

meaningful purpose. On the other hand, it will only prolong the distress for the parties concerned, particularly the victim girl, who is now married and residing with the petitioner. Hence the following;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶49

(ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.37/2024, pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur are quashed.

¶50

I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶52

KLY

Sri. Harish. R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Harish. R v. 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

Sri Rajesh S P., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajagopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunandamma. v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Anitha F Dsouza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sachin Kumar R. @ Sachin Vs State by Sanjaynagar Police

Shivalingaiah @ Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka