Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C (POCSO) NO. 173/2025 (CRIME NO. 205 OF HOLALKERE P.S.) ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 64(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITHA, 2023, SECTIONS 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶25

prayer:

¶26

“Wherefore the petitioner above named most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C (POCSO) No.173/2025 (Crime No.205 of Holalkere P.S.) on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga for the offence punishable Under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

Heard Sri.Gireesha J.T., learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Pavan Kumar G, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:20499 CRL.P No. 3996 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner and respondent No.2 are accused

¶33

and the victim. They are before the Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on the score of that they are married and are living happily. A certificate of marriage is appended to the petition. The marriage is said to have registered on 01.03.2026 after the victim has attained 18 years of age. The parties have preferred an application seeking compounding of the offence and closure of the proceedings on account of marriage between the two.

¶34

4. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,¹ has held as follows:

¶35

“….. …..

¶36

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.

¶37

4. Our attention was invited to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and

¶38

12025 SCC OnLine SC 614

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:20499 CRL.P No. 3996 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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 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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20499 CRL.P No. 3996 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

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.”

¶50

(Emphasis supplied)

¶51

Following the judgment of the Apex Court and in

¶52

the light of the marriage between the two, I deem it appropriate to accept the application seeking compounding of

¶53

the offence and obliterate the crime with a rider that if the accused-husband would leave the wife now married, in the lurch at any time, the impugned POCSO proceedings will spring back/revive.

¶54

With the aforesaid observations, the following:

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

[I] Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶57

[II] Proceedings in Spl.C (POCSO) No.173/2025 (Crime No.205 of Holalkere P.S.) on the file of II Addl.

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20499 CRL.P No. 3996 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga for the offence punishable Under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child

¶61

Marriage Act, qua the petitioner stands quashed.

¶62

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶63

CBC

¶64

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 105

Srinivas v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas 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

Prashanth Gupta @ Junaid Ahmed Alam Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Shekhar Mishra Vs State of Karnataka

Miranda Rodriguez Daniela Vs Union of India

Vaishali Ganeshchandra Bhat Vs Smt. Arpitha

Smt Nirdhala Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

TV9 Karnataka Private Limited, Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Cbi/Scb/Chennai