Sri. Kiran. S Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. KIRAN. S, S/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 00, 5TH CROSS, BESIDE GAYATHRI HOSPITAL, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 076. AS PER AADHAR COPY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY C.R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SUNDEEP KUMAR, S/O. RAJKUMAR NATHULAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.72/2, SHANTHINIKETHAN COLLEGE ROAD, BEHIND SOMESHWARA TEMPLE, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, B.G. ROAD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

HC-KAR

BANGALORE-560 076.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.HARIPRASAD K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528

¶23

BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO.583/2014 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.702/2014 REGISTERED BY MICO LAYOUT P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366, 376, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-III, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner in the above matter most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in SPL. C.C.No.583/2014 arising out of Cr. No.702/2014 registered by Mico Layout Police station for offences

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge-FTSC-III, Bangalore, in the interest of Justice.”

¶33

Heard Sri.Raghavendra Reddy C.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Hariprasad K.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶34

The complainant is the brother of the victim. The petitioner is the accused and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner is before the Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on the score of that he is married to the victim on 07.08.2017 after the victim has attained 18 years of age and are living happily. The petitioner and the victim have two children. The petitioner and the victim has filed a joint affidavit in this regard, which reads as follows:

¶35

" I, We, Sri.Kiran.S, S/o Shankarappa, Aged about 33 years, R/at No. 00, 5th ross Beside Gayathri Hospital, Bilekahalli, Bannerughatta Road, Bangalore South, Bangalore-560076 and Smt. Meena Kumbhare w/o Kiran S Aged about 28 years, R/at No. 00, 5th Cross Beside Gayathri Hospital, Bilekahalli, Bannerughatta

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Road, Bangalore South, Bangalore-560076 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

¶40

1. We state that we are the petitioner and victim in the above case and we are well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we are swearing to this affidavit.

¶41

2. I the victim submit that my brother the respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No.1 police station and same was registered in Crime No. 702/2014 for the offence punishable under sections 366(A), 376 IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner. After investigation, the respondent No.1 police have submitted their charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 IPC and Section 5(2) and 6 of POCSO Act against the petitioners in SPL. C. C. No.583/2014 Pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge-FTSC-III, Bangalore.

¶42

3. We the petitioner and victim submit that due to the advise of elders an well wishers of both the sides now we compromised the matter between us and we have decided to put an end to the litigation and we don't want to continue the said case as we both are married and having two kids and leading a happy life.

¶43

4. We the Petitioner and victim request this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash entire proceedings against the SPL. C. C. No.583/2014 Pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge-FTSC-III, Bangalore, for offences Punishable Under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 IPC and Section 5(2) and 6 of POCSO Act, in the interest of justice.

¶44

Hence, we most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass necessary orders as this Hon'ble court deemed fit in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of Justice."

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

4. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND

¶49

PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,¹ has held as follows:

¶50

“….. ….. …..

¶51

3. The second respondent is the first informant at whose instance, a First Information Report was registered on 18^th September, 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). The third respondent is the victim of the offence. As can be seen from the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), the alleged incident is of September, 2016. In the FIR, the second respondent has alleged that the age of the victim was 17 years.

¶52

4. Our attention was invited to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub-Registrar, Varanasi which records that the marriage between the appellant and third respondent has been solemnized on 5^th December, 2016. The date of birth of the third respondent - victim is shown therein as 20^th July, 1998. It is also brought on record that from the wedlock between the appellant and the third respondent, two children have been born whose documents have been produced along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10906 of 2025.

¶53

5. On the last date, we had directed learned counsel appearing for the State to get the marriage certificate relied upon by the parties duly verified. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by Dr. Atul Tripathi, ACP, Sarnath in which it is stated that the marriage certificate has been verified and it is found to be genuine and in fact a true copy thereof has been produced along with the affidavit.

¶54

6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20^th July, 1998. In the record

¶55

12025 SCC OnLine SC 614

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’, the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20^th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20^th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.

¶60

7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.

¶61

8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.”

¶62

(Emphasis supplied)

¶63

Following the judgment of the Apex Court and in

¶64

the light of the marriage between the two, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint affidavit of the petitioner and the victim and obliterate the crime with a rider that if the

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35912 CRL.P No. 10146 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

accused-husband would leave the wife now married, in the lurch at any time, the impugned POCSO proceedings will spring back/revive.

¶68

With the aforesaid observations, the following:

¶69

O R D E R

¶70

[I] Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶71

[II] Proceedings in SPL.C.C.No.583/2014 (arising out of Crime No.702/2014) registered by Mico Layout Police station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge-FTSC-III, Bangalore, qua the petitioner stands quashed.

¶72

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶73

CBC

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri. Kiran. S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kiran. S 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 Gangadhar v Yavagal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shaila Suresh Babu Shet Vs Mr. Sriramalu Naidu

Mr. Armel, Vs State of Karnataka

Musaddiq Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Deepak S.R.K. Vs the State by Byatarayanapura Police Station

Sri G Munindra Kumar Vs Sri Mohan Kumar a.