Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29920
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
MUNIRAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 28856 OF 2024 (GM – RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI
For the Respondents: SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., SRI RAMESH H.N.
Marriage of a minor victim does not exempt the accused from criminal liability, yet societal realities and victim welfare allow for proceedings to be quashed in specific cases, given no coercion and mutual consent are established.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(3); Prohibition of Child Marriage Act - Section 9 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioner married 2nd respondent, who was a minor at the time, resulting in prosecution under POCSO Act. The Court observed: 'It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences.' The proceedings were quashed based on the victim's affidavit stating she married of her free will and was living happily with the petitioner. (Paras 8, 12, 43)
(B) Quashment of proceedings - The court reiterated that even if the accused and victim are married, offences under POCSO should not be treated lightly, citing precedents outlining the need for consideration of societal impact. (Paras 10, 14, 27).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner married the victim, aged 17 at marriage, and a child was born. Prosecution initiated after pregnancy notification.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the victim's well-being should be prioritized and quashed the proceedings based on her affidavit declaring her autonomous decisions.
Issues: Whether proceedings can be quashed due to the marriage of the accused and victim and resultant childbirth.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that societal implications must guide decisions to quash proceedings, especially in cases involving minors, affirming that the victim's agency must be honored.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case details. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on marriage and charges. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl.Case(POCSO)142 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(3) of the IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’Act) and Section 9 of the PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT .
2. Heard Sri Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ramesh H N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner gets married to the victim on 14-05-2023. At the time of marriage, it transpires that the petitioner was 26 years and the 2nd respondent was 17 years. The marriage was performed by the parents of the petitioner, as the 2nd respondent was an orphan. After marriage, the 2nd respondent becomes pregnant and goes to get herself checked, it is then reported to the Child Development Project Officer, Malur on 29-12-2023, as the 2nd respondent was pregnant and she was 17 years and 8 months as on the said date. Therefore, it becomes an offence under the POCSO Act.
4. The police take the petitioner into custody. On 23-02-2024 the 2nd respondent delivers a baby girl. The prosecution then file their charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences and registers SPl.C.(POCSO) for the afore-quoted offences. The present case is preferred by the petitioner on the score that the proceedings should be quashed on two circumstances, that the chance of conviction in the case at hand is absolutely nil and the husband and the wife along with the child are living happily, as the child is close to one year old.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in such circumstances proceedings have been quashed by this Court and other High Courts on account of marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused. He would submit that the proceedings should be quashed and the couple should be left to live happily with the child, failing which, the child and the mother would be left in the lurch, as the petitioner is the only breadwinner in the family.
6. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B N Jagadeesh would vehemently refute the submission to contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. There cannot be quashment of the proceedings, either on a compromise or on looking at the statement of the victim in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as also, the dates and events are also not in dispute. This Court, on 03-12- 2024, while entertaining the petition has passed a detailed order staying further proceedings. The order reads as follows:
“The petitioner in the case at hand is the one who is accused of the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT and Sections 376(3) of the IPC.
The allegation against the petitioner is that, he has married the 2nd respondent/victim, when she was yet to complete 18 years of age. After the marriage, the victim becomes pregnant; goes to the hospital for a general checkup; the doctor gets to know that the age of the victim at that point in time is 17 years and 8 months and she has got in marriage to the petitioner before completion of 18 years.
This results in an information being transmitted to the competent authority and registration of a crime in Crime No.218/2023, for the offences as foun
