Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka By on 25 April, 2024
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16768
CRL.P No.3408 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3408 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O HANUMAPPA
R/AT VADDARAHATTI VILLAGE
BYALYA POST
PURUVARA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
Digitally signed TUMKUR - 572175.
by RUPA V ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.,)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION
CHICKBALLAPURA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. DR. NARASIMHA MURTHY T.H.
TALUK HEALTH OFFICER
AGED 47 YEARS
O/AT T.H.O. OFFICE
GUDIBANDE TOWN
CHICKBALLAPURA - 561209.
3. YASHODHA .N
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16768
CRL.P No.3408 of 2024
D/O NARAYANASWAMY .G
R/AT AVULNAGENAHALLI
AROOR, ARURU
CHIKKABALLAPURA -562104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. ABHISHEK SHETTY, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
CR.NO.49/2024 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5(J)(II), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, SEC.
10 AND 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE
(KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT AND SEC. 376(2)(n) OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF FAST TRACK COURT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused in Crime No.49/2024 registered by Gudibande police station, Chickballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(J)(II), 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 (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016, is before this Court to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The petitioner and the victim were in love. It is only when the victim had gone to the Primary Health Centre, Madhugiri for the purpose of delivery, after verification of her age, a complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2. They submit that the victim girl was a major as on the date of registration of the FIR and subsequently, the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl has been solemnized and the same is also registered before the jurisdictional Registrar of Marriages. They submit that the certificate of registration of marriage dated 01.04.2024 is also produced along with this petition. They also submit that the parties intend to give a quietus to the dispute between them and they intend to lead a normal family life. Therefore, they have filed an application before this Court under Section 482 read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offences. They -4- NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 submit that they have also filed an affidavit in support of the prayer made in the application to compound the offences for which FIR has been registered against the petitioner.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner for non-compoundable offences.
4. The application filed by the parties under Section 482 read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is taken on record. The parties who are present before the Court are identified by their respective advocates.
5. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, it is stated as follows:
"2. It is submitted in the above case the respondent no.2/complainant filed the case against the petitioner which is registered in Crime No.49/2024 of Gudibande Police station. The respondent no.3 is the victim and she is major and competent person to compound the offences alleged in the FIR. The petitioner and the victim/respondent -5- NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 no.3 are husband and wife and they married on 01/12/2023 in anjaneyaswami temple, Aroor village, Chickabalapur Taluk and their marriage is registered with registrar of marriage on 01/04/2024 and living with child. Considering the present situation and also in the interest and welfare of the children and the victim girl, it is just and necessary to quash the FIR against the petitioner. In view of the compromise arrived between the parties, respondent no.3 has no objection to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
3. It is submitted that offence under section 5(J)(II), 5(L)(6) of POCSO Act and under section 10, 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2016, and section 376(2)(n) of IPC are non-compoundable in nature but inview of facts and circumstance of the case since the petitioner and the victim/respondent no.3 are husband and wife and they married on 01/12/2023 in anjaneyaswami temple, Aroor village, Chickabalapur Taluk and their marriage is registered with registrar of marriage on 01/04/2024 and living with child and respondent no.3 has no objection for quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to permit the parties to compound the offence alleged against the Petitioner and quash the F.I.R. against the petitioner in Crime No.49/2024 of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 Gudibande Police Station, for the offences under section 5(J)(II), 5(L)(6) of POCSO Act and under section 10, 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2016, and section 376(2)(n) of IPC on the file of Fast Track Court, Chikkballapura. Otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and hardship."
6. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by victim before this Court, it is stated as follows:
"2. It is submitted in the above case the respondent no.2/complainant filed the case against the petitioner which is registered in Crime No.49/2024 of Gudibande Police Station. The respondent no.3 is the victim and she is major and competent person to compound the offences alleged in the FIR. The petitioner and the victim/respondent no.3 are husband and wife and they married on 01/12/2023 in anjaneyaswami temple, Aroor village, chickabalapur Taluk and their marriage is registered with registrar of marriage on 01/04/2024 and living with child. Considering the present situation and also in the interest and welfare of the children and the victim girl, it is just and necessary to quash the FIR against the petitioner. In view of the compromise arrived between the parties, respondent no.3 has -7- NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 no objection to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
3. It is submitted that offence under section 5(J)(II), 5(L)(6) of POCSO Act and under section 10, 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2016, and section 376(2)(n) of IPC are non-compoundable in nature but inview of facts and circumstance of the case since the petitioner and the victim/respondent no.3 are husband and wife and they married on 01/12/2023 in anjaneyaswami temple, Aroor village, Chickabalapur Taluk and their marriage is registered with registrar of marriage on 01/04/2024 and living with child and respondent no.3 has no objection for quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to permit the parties to compound the offence alleged against the Petitioner and quash the F.I.R. against the petitioner in Crime No.49/2024 of Gudibande Police Station, for the offences under section 5(J)(II), 5(L)(6) of POCSO Act and under section 10, 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2016, and section 376(2)(n) of IPC on the file of Fast Track Court, Chikkballapura. Otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and hardship."-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and these powers can be exercised to quash the legal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where the parties have settled their dispute and for that purpose any definite category of offence cannot be prescribed. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions outlined under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which means, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers independently notwithstanding the limitations under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. A coordinate bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances in the case of Mohammad Waseem Ahamad vs. State reported in AIR Online 2022 KAR 314, in view of the settlement arrived between -9- NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 the parties after the accused and the victim got married and the victim had given birth to a child, has quashed the entire proceedings in the criminal case which was pending before the Special Court for similar offences. In the case of Aarush Jain vs. State of Karnataka and another (Crl.P. No.3710/2022 DD 09.09.2022) a coordinate bench of this Court has observed as follows:
" xxxxxxxxxxx It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the victim were close friends and were infatuated to each other. Several Courts as quoted hereinabove have considered the impact of hauling an under aged boy into the web of the provisions under the POCSO Act has clearly held that POCSO Act was not meant to punish the accused who were in love with the victims therein.
14. It is a known fact which bear consideration in the aforequoted judgments, in physiological parlance, that adolescence of a child is between 10 to 19 years and young age is said to be between 20 to 24 years. Therefore, adolescence is a continuum of development process in the life of a child metamorphosing into young age or an adult. It would not be inapt to notice that young children or boys who have not yet reached the age of 18 years, many a time, without realizing or being ignorant of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 the consequences of their act which they perform in the frenzy of youth, emerge themselves as offenders under the provisions of POCSO Act and face serious consequences. Romantic love between a boy and a girl of the age of adolescence sometimes arising out of infatuations result in the boy embroiling himself into the vortex of the provisions of the POCSO Act.
15. The laudable object for which the POCSO Act was brought into effect cannot be forgotten, but that would not mean that it is meant to punish young children who would fall in love and commit such acts which would become punishable under the Act, a caveat, this Court is not painting every incidence of sexual activity of any kind that would become an offence under the POCSO Act, with the same brush, but there are cases of the kind, like the one at hand, where the adolescents have indulged in such acts due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx".
8. No doubt Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., however, considering the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh and Parbatbhai, that the powers of the High Court under
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted by the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings if this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal case is not in the interest of the parties and on the other hand ends of justice would be secured if the criminal proceedings is quashed, notwithstanding the fact that alleged offences are non compoundable, still this Court in deserving cases can quash the entire proceedings.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531 has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences where compromise is voluntary and allegations are private in nature, extra ordinary powers of the High Court can be exercised beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024
10. The High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving non- compoundable offence is required to take into consideration the gravity of offences and also the nature of offence. If the alleged offences are purely private in nature and if it is between the close family members and if a settlement is arrived between the parties who are close family members who intend to give a quietus to all the disputes, High Court can quash such criminal proceedings. The High Court is required to exercise such discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case surrounding the incident and also the background in which the settlement has been arrived between the parties having regard to the nature of the offences and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to do
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16768 CRL.P No.3408 of 2024 complete justice to the parties who are before this Court. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.49/2024 registered by Gudibande police station, Chickballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(J)(II), 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 (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 which is now pending before the Fast Track Court, Chikkaballapura, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 147