Sri. Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14563 CRL.P No. 9803 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9803 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNTEGANA VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶9

SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNTEGANA VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. RAMALAKSHAMAMMA W/O NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNTEGANA VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT 561 207.

¶12

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT GUNTEGANA VILLAGE MITTEMARI HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT-561 207.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR C.D, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:14563 CRL.P No. 9803 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE -560001.

¶19

SMT. JYOTHI, W/O NARASIMHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF MUTHINPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDING IN FIR BEARING CRIME NO.173/2022 NOW RENUMBERED AS SPL.SC.NO.144/2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC, SECTION 6, 8, 12 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9 AND 10 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSCI, CHIKKABALAPURA IN THE CHARGE SHEET WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO1. AND 4 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, CHIKKABALAPURA.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 to 4), who have been charge‑sheeted for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:14563 CRL.P No. 9803 of 2024

¶29

The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, fully aware that the daughter of Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) was a minor, solemnized her marriage with Accused No. 1.

¶30

The parties are present before this Court and have filed a joint memo, along with a copy of the Hindu Marriage Registration Certificate issued by the Sub‑Registrar, Bagepalli.

¶31

The survivor, who is present before this Court, has stated that she was in love with Accused No. 1, that the sexual intercourse was consensual, and that the marriage was solemnized without any undue influence or coercion. From this wedlock, a male child was born, who is now one year old. She further states that subjecting the petitioners to trial would result in incarceration and cause her and her child greater misery and agony than would be justified by the ends of justice.

¶32

The survivor and her child are solely dependent on Accused No. 1 to meet their daily needs, and they have no other means of earning a livelihood.

¶33

The object of the POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual abuse, not to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents who engage in sexual intercourse without awareness of the legal consequences.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:14563 CRL.P No. 9803 of 2024

¶36

In the present case, the petitioner and the survivor come from a lower socio-economic background with limited access to information and knowledge, depriving them of an understanding of the legal consequences of their consensual relationship. Though sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes an offence under the POCSO Act, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice, as their continuation would result in miscarriage of justice to the survivor and the child.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No. 173/2022, now renumbered as Spl.SC No. 144/2022 and pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC‑I, Chikkaballapura, is hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Naveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Naveen Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghav Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Harsha Vs State of Karnataka

Nitish Kashyap Vs State by Mahadevpura P. S.

Mrs Roshella D Costa Vs Mr. Ashwin Correa

Nagendra Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Dasthagiri Sab Vs Sri.K. Gopal Reddy