Disposed¶63

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2025CRL.P/3513/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

POCSO; S.376(2)(n) IPC; S.5(j)(ii) and S.6 POCSO Act; quash; S.482 Cr.PC; S.528 BNSS; compounding on joint affidavit; victim married accused; victim delivered baby; age proof S.94(2)(iii) J.J. Act; unreported Supreme Court judgment Criminal Appeal No.1898 of 2023; Crime No.85/2023; Spl.S.C.No.108/2023; Manchenahalli Police; Addl. District & Sessions Judge FTSC-1 Chikkaballapur; anticipatory bail Crl.P.6720/2023; High Court of Karnataka; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; decided 18-06-2025; proceedings quashed qua petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.108/2023 (arising out of Crime No.85/2023) quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. ¶63

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of the Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.108/2023 (arising out of Crime No.85/2023) quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.108/2023 (outcome of Crime No.85/2023 of Manchenahalli Police) for offences punishable u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, pending on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 Court, Chikkaballapur, should be quashed against the petitioner in view of the settlement recorded in the Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024.

¶28

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and her parents, the criminal petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.108/2023 (printed thus in the operative order; described elsewhere as Spl.S.C./Spl.SC No.108/2023), arising out of Crime No.85/2023 and registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, pending on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chickballapura, are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024) under S.482 Cr.PC / S.528 BNSS before the High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.; decided 18-06-2025): petitioner-accused sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.108/2023 (arising out of Crime No.85/2023 of Manchenahalli Police) for offences punishable u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkaballapur. The parents (CW-2 and CW-3) of the respondent No.2/complainant-victim filed a Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024 seeking permission to compound the case, stating that the victim married the petitioner at the age of 18 years and delivered a female baby at the age of 23 years, disputing the computation of the victim's age as 17 years 11 months 28 days from Aadhaar and school records, and quoting an unreported Supreme Court judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1898 of 2023 (para 19) on proof of age under Section 94(2)(iii) of the J.J. Act. All parties and counsel were physically present and admitted the affidavit contents. Held: petition disposed of in terms of the Joint Affidavit; proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.108/2023 quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3513 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SAYYAD URUZ HYDAR S/O SAYYAD SAYID ABBAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O ALLIPURA VILLAGE THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDNUR TALUK DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPURA - 561 211.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

SYEDA EZNAI HASHIMI W/O SAYED ATHAR HUSEN AGE MAJOR, HABID ALI ROAD, ALLIPURA VILLAGE THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 211.

¶17

(BY SRI. CHENNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. ANCHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AT SPL.S.C.NO.108/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.5(J)(ii) AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1 COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, WHICH IS THE OUTCOME OF CR.NO.85/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.5(J)(ii) AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT OF THE MANCHENAHALLI POLICE.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶27

“a) The petitioner may pleased be allowed.

¶28

b) Quash the proceedings at Spl.SC No.108/2023 for the offence u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and u/s 5(J) (ii) and section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 Court Chikkaballapur, which is the outcome of Crime No.85/2023 for the offence p/u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and u/s 5(J)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act of the Manchenahalli Police may pleased to quashed in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

c) Any other relief/s deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court apart from costs of the proceedings may pleased to granted in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent – complainant

¶31

have filed a Joint Affidavit duly signed by the parents of 2^nd respondent – complainant (victim) and their respective counsel and the same is taken on record.

¶32

Petitioner – accused and his counsel and 2^nd respondent and her mother and counsel for respondent No.2 are

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

physically present before the Court and they admit the contents of the Joint Affidavit, which reads as under:-

¶37

“ Joint Affidavit

¶38

“Herein we the CW-2 Smt. Syeda Meesam Bathool W/o Syed Athar Hussain, CW-3 Syed Athar Hussain both r/o Abid Ali Road Alipura Village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidnur Taluk, Dist. Chikballapura-561213, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on this joint affidavit as under:

¶39

We submit that we being parents of the victim conversant with all the facts and competent to swear this joint affidavit seeking permission to compound the Spl.S.C.No.108/2023 pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 of Chickballapura, which is the outcome Crime No.85/2023 u/s 376 (2)(n) and Section 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act of Manchenahalli PS.

¶40

We submit that on 20-05-2023 victim the daughter of the complainant develops stomach pain she was taken to Vanivilas hospital at Bengaluru and on 21-05-2023 she delivered a female baby. The Doctor seen the a card and said "Chikka vaisnavadige herge agiruttade" and informed police.

¶41

We submit that on 23-05-2023 at 07-00 Hours the statement of the complainant was recorded by Smt. Padma WPI of Chikkaballapur City Police Station in 'critical care response unit center' of Vanivilas hospital and on the basis of the same a case at Crime No.85/2023 u/s 376 IPC and

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

u/section 5 (j)(ii) and 6 of the of the POCSO Act was registered against the accused / petitioner.

¶46

We submit that the case was registered on the basis of the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar card of the victim.

¶47

We submit that the accused/petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High court in Criminal Petition No.6720/2023.

¶48

We submit that after investigation the Manchenahalli police filed the charge sheet against the accused/petitioner for the offence u/s 376 (2)(n) IPC and u/s 5 (j) (ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 court Chikkaballapur, cognizance of above offences was taken and a case at Spl. SC No.108/2023 was registered and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶49

We submit that the Discharge Summary report issued by the Hospital and produced along with the charge sheet disclose that the date of birth of victim as per Aadhar card No.765393422786 is 23-05-2005.

¶50

We submit that as per the school records issued by the Head Master of Bint-Ul- Huda Memorial English High School Alipur-561213, produced along with the charge sheet discloses that the alleged date of birth of the victim is 25-05-2005. The age of the victim was wrongly calculated on the basis of the above two documents as 17 years 11 months and 28 days which is not correct.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

We submit that in an unreported Judgment dated 1807-2023 in Criminal Appeal No.1898 of 2023 the Hon'ble Apex Court of India Held in Para No.19 of its judgment that:

¶55

"It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents produced during the trial answered the description of “the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equalent certificate” from the concerned or a Panchayath. In all these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical test/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94 (2) (iii) of the J.J. Act……." “as held earlier, the documents produced i.e. a transfer certificate and extract of the admission register, are not what section 94 (2) (ii)........ in these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section in 94 of the JJ Act was the medical certificate test, based on several X Rays of the victim……..” the downloaded copy of the judgment is rightly submitted along with the main petition.

¶56

We submit that during the course of the disposal of the bail petition in Criminal Petition No.6720/2023 the CW-2 / complainant first deponent submitted her detailed objections to the bail application copy of the same is enclosed along with the main Petition.

¶57

We submit that at the age of 18 years my daughter / victim married to the petitioner and at the age of 23 years she delivered a female baby.

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21370 CRL.P No. 3513 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that necessary permission may please be granted to compromise the Spl. SC No.108/2023 for the offence u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and u/s 5(J) (ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 Court Chikkaballapura, in the interest of justice and equity, hence deposed.”

¶61

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and their parents, I pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024.

¶64

(ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.108/2023 (arising out of Crime No.85/2023 of 1^st respondent – Police) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and u/s 5(J) (ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act pending on the file of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chickballapura, insofar as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed.

¶65

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶66

SV;

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Criminal proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.108/2023 for offences punishable u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner, arising out of Crime No.85/2023 of Manchenahalli Police; sought to be quashed under S.482 Cr.PC.¶19
Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 Court, Chikkaballapura
Prior proceeding
On 20-05-2023 the victim developed stomach pain and was taken to Vanivilas Hospital, Bengaluru; on 21-05-2023 she delivered a female baby and the doctor informed the police (as stated in the Joint Affidavit).¶40
Prior proceeding
On 23-05-2023 at 07-00 Hours the statement of the complainant was recorded by Smt. Padma, WPI of Chikkaballapur City Police Station, in the 'critical care response unit center' of Vanivilas Hospital, on whose basis Crime No.85/2023 u/s 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act was registered against the accused/petitioner.¶41
Prior proceeding
The accused/petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the High Court in Criminal Petition No.6720/2023.¶47
Prior proceeding
After investigation, Manchenahalli Police filed a charge sheet against the accused/petitioner u/s 376(2)(n) IPC and u/s 5(j)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 Court, Chikkaballapur; cognizance was taken and Spl. SC No.108/2023 was registered, pending adjudication.¶48
Prior proceeding
Joint Affidavit dated 19.09.2024 sworn by CW-2 (mother) and CW-3 (father) of the victim seeking permission to compound Spl.S.C.No.108/2023; filed through counsel and taken on record; parties physically present admitted its contents.¶38
Prior proceeding
Per the Joint Affidavit: as per Aadhaar card No.765393422786 the victim's date of birth is 23-05-2005, and school records disclose alleged date of birth 25-05-2005; the victim's age was calculated as 17 years 11 months and 28 days on that basis, which the deponents assert is incorrect.¶50
Prior proceeding
Per the Joint Affidavit: the victim married the petitioner at the age of 18 years and delivered a female baby at the age of 23 years.¶57

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar 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. H S Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnoji Rao Vs the State by Kengeri Police Station

Sri Venkatesh N C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Prashanthu K.M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Krishna S., Vs State of Karnataka