IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3017 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SHIVA KUMAR HOSAHALLI @ SHIVAKUMAR HOSAHALLI, S/O SHALIVAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO. MADINA GUDAN COLONY, HYDERABAD CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH – 500 049.

PERMANENT R/AT BETHLEHEM COLONY, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, MANGALA PATE, BIDAR – 585 401.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J (BY SRI. VINOD N, ADVOCATE)

KARISHETTY Location: AND:

High Court of Karnataka

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NELAMANGALA TOWN PS, BANGALORE RURAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. RAMU V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER i.e., ACCUSED IN CR.NO.17/2024 VIDE SPL.C.NO.618/2024 REGISTERED BY THE NELAMANGALA TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354(A), 354(C), 354(D), 376(2)(n), 506, 507, 384 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 66(E), 67(A) OF I.T ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 4, 5(L), 6, 12, 14, 15 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-2, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT I.E., ANNEXURES C AND D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Spl.C.No.618/2024 pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-2, Bangalore Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354C, 354D, 376(2)(n), 506, 507 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4, 5(l), 6, 12, 14 and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on the ground that the victim and the accused have got married.

2. Heard Sri. Vinod N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Ramu V, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. Respondent No.2 was a minor aged around 16 years at the relevant point in time, when she became a victim at the hands of the petitioner–accused. Based on the aforesaid information, the respondent No.2 - informant lodges a complaint before the respondent No.1 - police which becomes a crime in Crime No.17 of 2024. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet against the petitioner-accused. The concerned Court after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, registers a case in Spl.C.No.618/2024. It transpires that the petitioner - accused marries the respondent No.2 - victim on 18.05.2025, during the pendency of the proceedings in Spl.C.No.618/2024. Therefore, the subject petition is filed seeking quashment of the proceedings, on the score that, if further proceedings are continued, it would prejudice their married life.

4. The issue now would be, whether on account of marriage, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused could be quashed or otherwise. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MAHESH MUKUND PATEL v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ¹ has held as follows:

"5. On the last date, we had directed learned counsel appearing for the State to get the marriage certificate relied upon by the parties duly verified. Accordingly, an

[2025 SCC Online SC 614]

affidavit has been filed by Dr. Atul Tripathi, ACP, Sarnath in which it is stated that the marriage certificate has been verified and it is found to be genuine and in fact a true copy thereof has been produced along with the affidavit. 6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20^th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary