Karnataka High Court
Sanju S/O. Adiveppa Devaramani vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102412 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SANJU S/O. ADIVEPPA DEVARAMANI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. YARZARVI TQ. YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591129.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MURAGOD P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. MAHADEVI D/O. MAHANTESH PANADI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S R/O. YARZARVI, TQ. YARAGATTI,
HARIHAR
Location: High DIST. BELAGAVI-591129.
Court of
Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench
(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SHRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.137(1)(b), 64(1), 64(2)m OF BNS AND SECTION 4
& 6 OF POCSO ACT IN SPL. CASE NO.643/2024 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I BELAGAVI
(POCSO) AT BELAGAVI (MURAGOD PS CRIME NO.202/2024)
AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1), IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri. Harshawardhana M. Patil, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri.
Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 –
de facto complainant.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in
S.C. No.643/2024 on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO),
Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections
137(1)(b), 64(1), 645(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is
that the victim was aged about 17 years 4 months in the
year 2024. The petitioner came into contact with the
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
victim, developed love with her and on a promise to
marriage, he took her and committed penetrative and
aggravated sexual assault on her and thereafter, he made
criminal intimidations to eliminate her. Hence, the first
informant lodged the complaint which led to registration of
FIR and initiation of investigation. The Investigating Officer
investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for the
aforesaid offences. Soon after receipt of the charge sheet,
the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued
process against the accused. Taking exception to the
same, this petitioner filed petition to quash the entire
proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim
(respondent No.2 – de facto complainant) on 13.05.2025
before the Sub-Registrar, Murgod, and the marriage has
since been registered. It is further submitted that the
families of both the accused and the victim are now
maintaining cordial relations, and the earlier differences
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
have been amicably resolved. The accused and the victim
are presently residing together under one roof. In light of
this development, a compromise petition has been filed,
wherein the parties have expressed that the continuation
of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve
no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. Since the alleged offences are non-
compoundable in nature, the petitioner has sought
quashing of the proceedings and permission to record the
compromise.
5. Today, both the accused and respondent No.2 –
the de facto complainant are present before the Court.
They have affirmed that they are legally married, having
registered their marriage before the Sub-Registrar, and
that the dispute between them has been resolved
amicably.
6. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State
submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
the parties, the Court may allow the compromise and
quash the proceedings.
7. Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 – de facto complainant submits that since
the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the
accused has solemnized his marriage with the victim, in
view of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings may
be quashed.
8. Perused the materials available on record. The
de facto complainant has married accused and now she is
residing with the accused happily. Since, the accused and
the de facto complainant have compromised the dispute
with each other, it will be a futile exercise, if the accused
is subjected to trial, since, the probability of his conviction
is remote and bleak. In view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, the continuation of criminal
proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr1 has
held at para Nos.31 to 35 as under:
“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum
up and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code is to be distinguished from the power
which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases
which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,
the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is
to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid
two objectives.
1
(2014) 6 SCC 466
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in
those prosecutions which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for
offences alleged to have been committed
under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly
civil character, particularly those arising out
of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal cases would put
the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the
High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under
this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to
proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on
the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court
can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement
between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its
power under Section 482 of the Code or not,
timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived
at immediately after the alleged commission
of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal
in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge
sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the
evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still
at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment
of the circumstances/material mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete or
after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
the High Court should refrain from exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Code, as
in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits
and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed
or not. Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage
before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to
accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under
Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime.
32. After having clarified the legal position in the
manner aforesaid, we proceed to discuss the case at
hand.
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 was registered under Section
307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed,
whereafter challan was presented in the court against
the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed;
the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At
this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the
basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code
was filed by the petitioners namely the accused
persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under
the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which
was annexed along with the petition, the compromise
took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when
respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a
meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is
stated that on the intervention of the said
persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for
compromise and have also decided to live with peace in
future with each other. It was argued that since the
parties have decided to keep harmony between the
parties so that in future they are able to live with peace
and love and they are the residents of the same
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
village, the High Court should have accepted the said
compromise and quash the proceedings.
34. We find from the impugned order that the
sole reason which weighed with the High Court in
refusing to accept the settlement between the parties
was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor
alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High
Court’s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter,
some other attendant and inseparable circumstances
also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a
different view.
35. We have gone through the FIR as well which
was recorded on the basis of statement of the
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”.
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that
there have been some disputes which led to the
aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the
complainant. In this context when we find that the
elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in
the matter and the parties have not only buried their
hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The evidence
is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In
view of compromise between parties, there is a
minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in
support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of
injuries can still be established by producing the doctor
as witness who conducted medical examination, it may
become difficult to prove as to who caused these
injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear
to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to
drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors
into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that
the compromise between the parties be accepted and
the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121
dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station
LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
We order accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana2 has held at
para Nos.8, 9 and 10 as under:
“8. Since, the appellant and the complainant
have married each other, the affirmation of the
judgment rendered by the High Court would have the
disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being
sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial
relationship with the complainant in danger.
9. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise
the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India for quashing the conviction of the accused
appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and
modified by the High Court.
10. As a result, the impugned judgment dated
27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and
judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial
Court are hereby quashed and set aside.”
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.6214/2022 considering the ratios laid down in
J.Ramesh Kamath and others vs. Mohana Kurupt and
2
2024 Live Law (SC) 391
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
others3, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another4,
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another5, Srinivasan Iyender vs. Bimla Devi
Agarwal6, permitted the parties to compromise in similar
terms and in Criminal Petition No.101756/2024,
considering the above said ratio laid down, has quashed
the proceedings against the accused.
12. At this juncture, since there are number of
judgments of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which
have quashed the proceedings on account of marriage of
the victim with the accused. Hence, I deem it proper to
follow those judgments and quash the proceedings against
the petitioner.
13. Therefore, in the light of marriage having taken
place between the victim and accused, more particularly,
3 (2016) 12 SCC 179
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5 (2014) 6 SCC 466
6 (2019) 4 SCC 456
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025
HC-KAR
the marriage being registered and a certificate being
issued in accordance with law depicting the couple to be
legally wedded husband and wife, it shows that the couple
are leading a happy marital life. If the victim is going to
turn hostile in the trial at a later point in time and the
petitioner gets acquitted of all the offences, sword of crime
would turn to sword of the accused. It is not the end result
that is painful or otherwise, but the process in the criminal
justice system that generates such pain. In the teeth of
these facts, glaring enough they are, if the Court would
shut its doors to the couple who are married, the entire
proceeding would result in miscarriage of justice. It is
therefore, I deem it appropriate, to accept the settlement
between the parties and terminate the proceedings qua
the petitioner.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is disposed of.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8045
CRL.P No. 102412 of 2025HC-KAR
The impugned proceedings in S.C. No.643/2024 on
the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge FTSC-I Belagavi (POCSO), Belagavi insofar as the
petitioner – accused is concerned, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGERSH /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16