Mr M D Abdulla Vs State of Karnataka

MRS. SURAIAH BHANU W/O MR. ABDULLA M.D., AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDENT OF LAKKURU VILLAGE NEAR CHIKKA THIRUPATHI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR KARNATAKA - 563 160.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1;

¶30

SRI MIR ZEESHAN ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 26.04.2025 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 64 OF THE BNS, SEC.5(L), 6 POCSO ACT 2012, U/S. 9, 10 PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 AT ANNEXURE -B AND CHARGE SHEET NO.39/2025 DTD 20.06.2025 AT ANNEXURE-D, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIOSN JUDGE FTSC-1 (POCSO) SPECIAL COURT, KOLAR AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.39/2025, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO) Spe., Kolar, for the offences punishable under Section 64 of the BNS, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the score that the petitioner – accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - victim are married.

¶38

Heard Smt. Niveditha Prakash, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri M.R.Zeeshan Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶43

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

¶44

A crime comes to be registered against petitioner No.1, the husband of respondent No.2 and their family members in Crime No.34/2025, for the offences punishable under Section 64 of the BNS, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. At the relevant point in time, respondent No.2 - victim was a minor, 17½ old. The family members of the couple have got married petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 24.05.2024. It transpires that the crime is registered on the score that respondent No.2 gets admitted to the hospital for delivery when she was below 18 years.

¶45

On the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are before this Court seeking permission to compound the offences. The parties to the lis have filed a joint affidavit before this Court in this regard. The joint affidavit of the parties reads as follows:

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

“ JOINT AFFIDAVIT

¶50

We, 1) Mr. M.D. Abdulla, S/o Hafeez Burshad @ Md Khurshid, aged about 25 years, Resident of Lakkuru Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka, Permanent Resident of Araria District, Bihar - 854311 today at Bengaluru 2) Mrs. Suraiah Bhanu, w/o Mr. Abdulla M.D, aged about 19 years, Resident of Lakkuru Village, Near Chikka Thirupathi, Malur Taluk, Kolar, Karnataka - 563160 today at Bengaluru do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

¶51

1. We state that, we the petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Our marriage is registered on 25-09-2025. We have a female child born to us.

¶52

2. We state that, we are living together as husband and wife. Due to ignorance of Law, by our elders, the marriage was performed when the Respondent No.2 was 17/½ years old. Our marriage is an arranged marriage. During delivery, the doctors got registered the FIR through the Respondent No.2.

¶53

3. We submit that, we are leading happy married life. The in-laws of Respondent No.2/ Petitioners are economically weaker section and the Petitioner No.4 & 5 are in their Ripe age. There are living in Bihar, the journey by train is 3 days. They are unable to attend the court date and NBW is issued against Petitioner No.4 & 5.

¶54

4. Wherefore, we humbly pray that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR dated 26-04-2025 as per Annexure - B and charge sheet as per Annexure-D registered against us. In the interest and well-being of our family members and infant, we pray that, this FIR be quashed. If the same is not quashed, we will be put to great hardship, in-convenience and irreparable loss.”

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

In the light of the fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has already taken place and the parties have filed the joint affidavit seeking permission to compound the offences, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint affidavit and obliterate the crime registered only against petitioner No.1 on the score that petitioner No.1 and the complainant has got married and living happily. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF

¶59

U.P. AND OTHERS¹ , wherein it is held as follows:

¶60

" 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.

¶61

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 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

¶62

1 [2025 SCC Online SC 614]

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No. 567 of 2016 registered with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed."

¶70

(Emphasis supplied)

¶71

Later, the High Court of Kerala in the case of STATE OF

¶72

KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker

¶73

2295, has held as follows:

¶74

“24. Having extensively referred to the above views of the various High Courts, I am only inclined to follow the views of this Court in Vishnu case⁴ , as

¶75

8 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

also, of the various High Courts, where the proceedings were quashed taking stock of the settlement between the parties, ultimately ending in the marriage between the petitioner-accused and the de facto complainant/victim. I am of the opinion that, merely because the offences under the POCSO Act is alleged, there cannot be an absolute proposition of law that the proceedings cannot be quashed based on settlement between the parties, especially when the settlement is genuine and bona fide so as to ultimately result in the marriage between the accused and the victim. As held in many cases, each case will have to be addressed in the peculiar facts obtaining therein and there cannot be an en bloc conclusion that the quashment is wholly impermissible in cases involving POCSO offences. There are offences which are not of a very serious and grievous nature coming under the POCSO Act, say, for example, an offence under Sections 11( i ) or ( iv ) of the Act. By saying that the said offences are less serious, this Court is not undermining the significance and seriousness of such offences, since it is perpetrated against a minor. However, when the legal position, even in respect of an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code, is to the effect that the same can be quashed based upon genuine and bona fide settlement between the parties, there is no reason as to why a less serious offence under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated. Generally, serious offences having a sexual overtone, like rape under the Penal Code and a penetrative sexual assault, etc. under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated by quashing the same, acting only upon the settlement between the parties. It is indeed the offence against the society and not a private issue between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating circumstances, adherence to that rule will work out injustice. Suffice to say that the choice in this regard will have to be taken based on the attendant facts; and not on the basis of the nomenclature of the statute.

¶79

25. Coming to the instant facts, in both the cases, the petitioner-accused had married the victim. Affidavits sworn to by the victims and their statements recorded by the investigating officer

¶80

9 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

would reveal that they are living a happy married life, along with their child. The petitioner-accused is adequately taking care of the interest of the victim. In one case, the victim is sent for further studies and the child is being taken care of by the petitioneraccused. This Court is of the opinion that these circumstances are extremely extenuating, so as to bring the case outside the scope of the general proposition that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed, acting only upon the settlement between the parties.

¶84

26. The following aspects assume significance in the peculiar nature of the cases, where the offence is followed by the marriage between the perpetrator and the victim:

¶85

(1) Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated by quashing the same, there will be utter chaos, confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim who married the accused and who is leading a happy life. In other words, the life of the victim, the accused and the child, if any, in that relationship will be ruined. Per contra, if the offence is quashed, it will bring in harmony, peace and happiness, thus promoting their family life.

¶86

(2) Unless, the court choose to quash the proceedings, the trauma/agony of the child/victim continues, despite a genuine and bona fide settlement.

¶87

(3) Despite and dehors a bona fide and genuine settlement culminating in the marriage between the petitioner-accused and the victim, if the criminal proceedings are to continue thereby compelling the parties to face the trial the same verge upon abuse of process.

¶88

(4) The ends of justice is in favour of quashment in such category of cases, since it will be an injustice to separate a well knit family by the continuance of the proceedings.

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

(5) Quashment of the proceedings will result in rendering total and complete justice to the parties.

¶93

(6) When the crucial witness is the victim, who had married the accused, there exists little chance for her to speak against her own husband/accused, wherefore, the chances of conviction will be too bleak and remote. In other words, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuance of the proceedings.

¶94

(7) Compelling the continuance of a proceedings, which is otherwise settled genuinely and which answers the requirements of the interest of justice will only add to the burden of criminal courts in India, which is otherwise overburdened. ”

¶95

(Emphasis supplied)

¶96

In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala and that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 has taken place before the registration of the crime, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime, with a rider that in the event, petitioner No.1 would leave the lady in lurch, impugned proceedings in C.C.No.39/2025 would get revived.

¶97

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶98

O R D E R

¶99

a. Criminal Petition is allowed in-part .

¶100

11 -

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:14457 CRL.P No. 279 of 2026

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

b. The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2025, for the offences qua petitioner No.1 - accused No.1, punishable under Section 64 of the BNS, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, stand quashed on account of the observations made in the course of the order.

¶104

c. The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2025, qua petitioner Nos.2 to 5 for the offences under Section 64 of the BNS, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, stand quashed.

¶105

d. The proceedings in C.C.No.39/2025, qua petitioner Nos.2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is not interfered with and therefore, shall continue.

¶106

f. It is made clear that if respondent No.2 - complainant-victim is left in the lurch by petitioner No.1, the impugned proceedings which has now been obliterated on account of the quashment, would get revived.

¶107

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶108

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Mr M D Abdulla v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr M D Abdulla 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

Srikantha v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pretham Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vishnu G N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sharanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jai Ganesh Vs Smt. Swapna. R

Mr Nithin Kumar K v Alias Nithin Vs State of Karnataka