Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Geetha K.B., J.
Shivaraj – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka, and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 100997 of 2026, (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
Decided on 26.5.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Saurabh Sondur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri. Jairam Siddi, HCGP For R1; R2 - Served)
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing – Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash even non-compoundable offences.
Headnote:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363 and 376(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 359 and 528] – Kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor girl – Victim who is present before Court submitted that she married petitioner and leading happy married life with him and she is being looked after by petitioner and her in-laws properly – She is at 8th month of her pregnancy and she wanted criminal case against her husband be closed – Offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 are non-compoundable in nature – Even then, High court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash proceedings, if it is required to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court – Victim would give birth to a child in a very short period – If proceedings against petitioner are not quashed, it would allow abuse of process of court – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 9, 11, 13, 17, 20 and 24)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Geetha K.B., J.—Notice to respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files memo with original (Matter in other language) and after perusal it is returned by retaining its copy.
3. This is the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS, 2023’, for short)/482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioner/accused in Crime No.60/2024 of Shirahatti Police Station registered as S.C.No.40/2024 (POCSO Act) on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offences punishable Sections 363, 376(2) (N) of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The brief facts of the case alleged in the charge sheet are that on 15.04.2024, the accused/present petitioner has kidnapped the minor victim with an intention to commit penetrative sexual assault on her; took her to Veerabhadraswamy temple near Panduranga auto stand, Hasan and then to Room No.5 at 4th Floor of Manasvi Complex; on 17.04.2024 committed penetrative sexual assault on her and also subsequently 3-4 times and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.
6. Petitioner and the victim are present before Court and they are identified by learned counsel for the petitioner. Along with petition, petitioner has produced marriage certificate of the petitioner and victim, which reveals that they were married on 25.5.2025 and said marriage was registered on 30.5.2025. The age certificate of victim produced before the Sessions Court, which reveals that the date of birth of victim is 26.4.2006. The alleged date of petitioner taking the victim without the consent of her parents has taken place on 15.4.2024. In the first information itself, it is stated that the age of victim is 17 years 11 months 21 days. Hence only 9 days is short of to attain the age of majority as on the date of alleged incident of taking the victim by the petitioner.
7. After receipt of FIR, charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court alleging the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken, charge was framed against accused. After framing of charge, trial was commenced and some witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Now the case is at the stage of further trial to examine the remaining witnesses.
8. The victim was examined in the aforesaid case as PW1. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that victim has not supported the case of prosecution regarding these alleged offences against the petitioner. Learned HCGP has not disputed these facts.
9. The victim who is present before Court submitted that she married the petitioner and leading happy married life with him and she is being looked after by the petitioner and her in-laws properly. She is at 8th month of her pregnancy and she wanted the criminal case against her husband be closed for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(N) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
10. According to (Matter in other Language) produced today, the date of last menstruation of victim is 07.09.2025 and estimated date of delivery is 14.06.2026. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage with petitioner, the victim became conceived and presently, she is in her advanced stage of pregnancy.
11. The offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 are non-compoundable in nature. Even then, this court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the proceedings, if it is required to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.
12. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein at paragraph 61, it is held as under:
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the
