Sri Parashurama Hanuma Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

SRI PARASHURAMA HANUMA GOWDA S/O HANUMA GOWDA HUCCHANA GOWDAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMATHAHALA VILLAGE, HUNAGUDA TALUK, BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADHESHA B. K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN POLICE STATION

¶15

CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE -560001

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

(REPRESENTED BY THE SPP)

¶18

MR SRISHYLA,

¶19

S/OTHIPPANNA MASATAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS KSRTC DRIVER, R/AT HIREBENDANUR GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALAPAR DISTRICT

¶20

RENUKA

¶21

W/O HANUMATHA BIRADHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT UTNAL VILLAGE, VIJAYAPUR TALUK VIJAYAPUR-DISTRICT-586 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:54101 CRL.P No. 15539 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1

¶27

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.064/2022 LATER REGISTERED AS SPL. SC NO. 140/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC1 [POCSO], CHIKKABALLAPUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366,376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENSES ACT, 2012 AND SECTION 9 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR in Crime NO.64/2022, registered at Gowribidanuru Town Police Station, Chikkaballapura and the proceeding in Spl.S.C.No.140/2022 pending on the file of the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, (POCSO) Chikkaballapura.

¶33

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 9 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act, 2000 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:54101 CRL.P No. 15539 of 2025

¶35

3 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

It is alleged that on 17.03.2022 at about 10:30 a.m. accused No.1 kidnapped the minor victim from Hirebidanuru and took her to Karavara, and married her in one Sri. Nagalingeshwara Maruti temple by tying a turmeric thread and then committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her.

¶38

According to prosecution, victim was born on 08.10.2006 and therefore, she was a minor as on the date of commission of the offence.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner has denied the date of birth of the victim, furnished by the prosecution contending that except the certificate issued by the school, there is no other acceptable material on record to confirm the age of the victim.

¶40

Petitioner, victim and respondent No.3, victim’s mother are present before the Court.

¶41

Application is filed under Section 359 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 along with a joint affidavit

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:54101 CRL.P No. 15539 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

of the parties seeking permission to quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement.

¶46

It is stated that victim and the petitioner are married on 31.10.2025, after the victim attained the age of majority and the marriage is also registered at the Office of the registrar of marriages. A copy of the registration certificate has been enclosed, wherein, it is seen that the marriage was solemnized on 03.02.2025 and the marriage was registered on 31.10.2025.

¶47

Material on record goes to show that the victim’s evidence was recorded by the trial Court, wherein, she has denied the prosecution case. She has stated that the petitioner has not kidnapped or married her and not committed any such act as alleged by the prosecution.

¶48

It is useful to refer to para 7 of the judgment in ' Madhukar and others v. State of Maharashtra and

¶49

another' arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7212/2025

¶50

“7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:54101 CRL.P No. 15539 of 2025

¶52

5 -

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.”

¶55

11. Taking into consideration, the peculiar facts and

¶56

circumstances of the case, and considering that the parties are now married, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve any purpose, on the other hand, it would prolong distress of all concerned, especially the victim, who is now married and living with the petitioner. Hence, it is expedient to quash the

¶57