Karnataka High Court
Indresh S/O. Ramanna Emmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103067 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
INDRESH S/O. RAMANNA EMMI,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. INDRIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 239.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.),
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. SMT. DURUGAMMA W/O. AMBRESH,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. INDRIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 236.
Digitally signed
... RESPONDENTS
by RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
Location: HIGH
S COURT OF SRI. BASAVARAJ N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
HARIHAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS PETITION QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. S.C.
POCSO (AC) NO.33/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I AT KOPPAL, IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.237/2021 REGISTERED IN
MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 376 AND 342 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(W), 3(2)(VA) OF
SC/ST ACT 2015 AND SECTION 5(J)(II), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused in Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.33/2021 pending
before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge & FTSC-1,
Koppal in Crime No.237/2021 registered by Munirabad Police
Station, Koppal District for the offences punishable under
Section 376, 342 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 5(J)(ii) and 6
of POCSO Act, 2012 is before this Court in this petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in the aforesaid case against him.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent no. 2 – defacto complainant jointly
submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled. They submit that after the petitioner was enlarged on
bail, on the advice of the well wishers and elders of both the
families, marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl who was
then a major was performed and from the wedlock the couple
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
now have two children. They submit that pendency of the
criminal case has been causing hardship to the petitioner and
the victim girl and they are not in a position to lead a normal
family life. If it is under these circumstances they intend to give
a quietus to the dispute. Therefore, they have approached this
Court.
4. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this
Court that the alleged offences are uncompoundable in nature.
5. The private parties to the petition have filed an
application under Section 320 R/w 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer
to permit them to compound the alleged offences. The said
application is signed by the respective parties is supported by
the affidavit of the petitioner and the affidavit of the defacto
complainant who is the mother of the victim girl.
6. The petitioner, the first informant and the victim girl
are present in person before the Court and they are identified
by their respective advocates. The victim girl who is present
before the Court has stated that, she is now married to the
petitioner and from their wedlock two children are born to her
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
and she is living a happy married life with the petitioner. In the
affidavit of the first informant, who is the mother of the victim
girl, in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 it is stated as follows:-
3. After filing of the complaint the police took
up the investigation and arrested the petitioner /
accused and filed charge sheet, after filing of the
charge sheet the petitioner was enlarged on bail by
this Hon’ble Court.
4. When this being the case that, after
enlarged on bail as per the advice of elders, the
petitioner has got marriage with victim and out of
wedlock 2 children were born and now the victim
and petitioner are leading happy marital life. Hence,
for the said development the petitioner and
respondent No.2 have filed this application”.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GIAN
SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1 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
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
PARBATBHAI AAHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT2 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
3
MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD Vs. STATE , in view of the
settlement arrived between 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 ANOTHER4, 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 was2
(2017) 9 SCC 641
3
AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314
4
Crl.P. No.3710/2022, DD: 09.09.2022
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025HC-KAR
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 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
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
knowledge of consequence of law. xxxxxxxxxxxx”.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
MADHUKAR & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
ANR.5 in paragraph No.6 has held as follows:
“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and
heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
proceedings involving such offences on the
ground of settlement between the parties is
discouraged and should not be permitted lightly.
However, the power of the Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice is not
constrained by a rigid formula and must be
exercised with reference to the facts of each
case.”
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 cases of GIAN
SINGH and PARBATBHAI (supra), that the powers of the
High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not restricted
by the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the
5
2025 INSC 819
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
6
RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ,
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.
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
6
AIR 2022 (14) SCC 531
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
offences and also the nature of allegations. In the present case,
the allegations against the petitioner made by the first
informant and the victim girl are private in nature. The dispute
between the parties has now been settled and during the
pendency of the case before the trial Court, the petitioner has
married the victim girl, after she attained the age of majority
and from the wedlock the couple have two children.
11. The dispute between the parties has been amicably
settled at the intervention of the well wishers and elders of
both the family and therefore they intend to put an end to the
dispute and live peacefully in future. Under the circumstances, I
am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein this Court
requires to exercise its inherent powers for the purpose of
securing ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The entire
proceedings in Spl.S.C.(POCSO)No.33/2021 pending before the
Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge & FTSC-1, Koppal in
Crime No.237/2021 registered by Munirabad Police Station,
Koppal District for the offences punishable under Section 376,
342 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA)
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10294
CRL.P No. 103067 of 2025
HC-KAR
Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 5(J)(ii) and 6 of POCSO
Act, 2012 is hereby quashed as against the petitioner herein.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43