Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M Vs State of Karnataka

SMT.AMBIKA W/O UMASHANKAR.M, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFIER, (CDPO) OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT, KORATAGERE. TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572129

¶20

BOTH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 58/2023 DATED 29/06/2023 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012 AND SECTION 9, 10 AND 11 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 R/W SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE FILED BY THE R-1 POLICE VIDE ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶30

“ (i) Call for the entire records in Spl.C.No.1114/2023 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-3, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

¶31

(ii) Quash the FIR in Crime No.58/2023, dated: 29..06.2023 for alleged offences punishable under Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the 1^st respondent police Vide Annexure-A. In so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶32

(iii) Consequently quash charge sheet in Spl.C.No.1114/2023 before the Hon’ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-3, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for offences punishable under section 17 of the

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ACt 2012 and Section 9,10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code Vide Annexure-B. In so far as petitioners are concernedly.

¶36

(iv) Grant such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶37

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶38

Briefly stating the facts giving rise to present petition are as under:

¶39

Sri.Venugopal and his wife Smt. Lakshmidevi are the parents of the alleged victim Deepika whose marriage was performed by them with one Santhosh S/o Siddalingappa on 08.12.2022. It is alleged that at the time of her marriage, the victim was aged about 16 years. On 29.06.2023, the respondent No.2 Child Development Project Officer, Department of Women and Child Development filed the impugned complaint registered as an FIR in Crime No.58/2023 against petitioners and five other persons for alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 114, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Child Marriage Act’). In pursuance of the said complaint, the respondent No.1- Police Authorities filed a charge sheet arraigning the petitioners as accused Nos.13 and 14 along with others which is currently pending in Spl.C.No.1114/2023, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶43

A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, Charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents etc., will clearly indicate that the victim had herself contacted the petitioners, who were her neighbours and informed petitioners that she was being ill-treated and harassed physically and mentally by her husband and in-laws and that she was forced into marriage by her parents. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said parents, husband and in-laws of the victim have also being arraigned as accused persons in the impugned proceedings. Upon the victim complaining to the petitioners over mobile phone as stated supra, petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint with respondent No.2 on 29.05.2023 and the statement of the victim was recorded by the respondent No.2 –CPDO on 31.05.2023,

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

which led to the respondent No.2 registering the impugned FIR against petitioners and other accused persons.

¶48

The material on record discloses that insofar as offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 114, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act are concerned, there is absolutely no material by way of the impugned complaint, FIR, Charge sheet material or otherwise so as to incriminate the petitioners for the alleged offences; in fact, all allegations in relation to these offences are directed against the remaining accused persons and in the absence of any allegations contained in the FIR or charge sheet and its material so as to incriminate the petitioners for these offences, the commission of which by the petitioners are not disclosed or made out and are conspicuously absent, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are undisputedly merely the neighbours of the victim, who had contacted them alleging commission of these offences by the remaining accused persons and not by the petitioners – accused Nos.13 and 14, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners in relation to these offences deserve to be quashed.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The material on record also indicates that according to

¶53

the prosecution, the only allegations made against the petitioners pertain to Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Child Marriage Act on the ground that they were involved in the performance and conduct of the marriage of the victim, who was aged about 16 years at the time of her wedding, which took place on 08.12.2022. In this regard, it is significant to note that apart from the fact that the petitioners were the neighbours of the house of the victim’s parents, the said solitary/sole circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that they were also involved in the performance and conduct of the victim’s marriage, which was undisputedly performed by her parents. In fact, there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners participated, performed, conducted, directed or abetted the marriage of the victim when she was alleged aged about 16 years so as to attract the provisions of the Child Marriage Act qua the petitionersaccused Nos.13 and 14. Further, in her statement under 164 Cr.P.C and in her testimony/deposition before the Trial Court as PW-2 (CW-2), the victim categorically and specifically states that the petitioners were neighbours of the house of her parents and

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

rather/instead of committing any offence, the petitioners had in fact supported and helped her when she contacted them over mobile phone which led to petitioner No.2 informing respondent No.2 – complainant (CPDO) who recorded the statement of the victim and culminated in the impugned complaint and FIR. A perusal of the entire evidence of the victim (PW-2) as well as her 164 Statement is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot be held to be guilty of commission of alleged offences under the Child Marriage Act.

¶57

The material on record also discloses that the petitioners were neighbours of the house of the parents of the victim and were not aware of her actual age and it was only when the victim contacted them on 29.05.2023 that they informed respondent No.2, who proceeded further as stated supra. There is absolutely no material produced by the respondents to indicate either the knowledge of the petitioners about the age of the victim or that they were guilty of abetment of any of the offences alleged against them. The undisputed fact that in order to help/support the victim, the petitioners contacted respondent No.2-CPDO is also an indicator of the fact that the petitioners did not have any mens rea

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

to commit any of the alleged offences and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also.

¶61

The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to

¶62

come to the conclusion that while there are absolutely no allegations whatsoever made against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 114, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, there is no material to establish that the petitioners are guilty of abetting the commission of these offences. As stated supra, insofar as offences punishable under the Child Marriage Act are concerned, in the light of the material on record, in particular, absence of any material to attract the said offences qua the petitioners coupled with the categorical and unambiguous 164 statement and testimony of the victim (PW-2), I am of the view that in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the chances of the petitioners being convicted is very bleak and continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners would be an exercise in futility warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶63

In the result, I pass the following:

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:25759 WP No. 21480 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. This petition is hereby allowed .

¶69

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶70

Spl.C.No.1114/2023 arising out of Crime No.58/2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-3, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, insofar as petitioners/accused No.13 and 14 are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶71

iii. It is made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case and this order shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall have any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

¶72

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶73

GSR/MDS

¶74

List No.: 5 Sl No.: 18

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M 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

Sri N Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Puneet S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Poorvika. M. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Himanshu Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar Prasad @ B R Bhaskar Prasad Vs State by Cottonepete Ps

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi Vs the State of Karnataka