Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj S/O Bsappa Naduvinkeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100997 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S/O. BASAPPA NADUVINKERI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: HEBBAL, TQ: SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG - 582 120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAURABH SONDUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 011.
2. SHOBHA CHANDRASHEKHAR SANGAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O: RATNATUR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG - 582 120.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
...RESPONDENTS
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, R2 - SERVED)
DHARWAD BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN SHIRAHATTI POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.60/2024 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS
S.C.NO.40/2024 (POCSO ACT) ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 363, 376 (2) (N), OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF THE
POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Notice to respondent No.2 is served and
unrepresented.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files memo with
original vÁ¬Ä PÁqïð 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 and 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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
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
25.05.2025 and said marriage was registered on
30.05.2025. The age certificate of victim produced
before the Sessions Court, which reveals that the
date of birth of victim is 26.04.2006. The alleged
date of petitioner taking the victim without the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
consent of her parents has taken place on
15.04.2024. 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
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 vÁ¬Ä PÁqïð 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
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 Another1, wherein at paragraph 61, it
is held as under:
61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power
of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320
of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has
to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court. In what cases power to1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026HC-KAR
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
FIR may be exercised where the offender and
the victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity,
etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse
of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. Thus, the powers that this court can exercise under
Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 is distinct and
different from the powers that exercised by criminal
courts under Section 320 Cr.P.C/Section 359 of
BNSS, 2023. However, such powers are to be
exercised judiciously to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of court.
14. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Muhesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of
U.P. and Others2, wherein at para 8 it is held as
under:
“8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the
marriage certificate was placed on record before
the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first
informant is also recorded in the impugned order.
Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining
the petition for quashing on the ground of
settlement, has observed that the application for
dropping criminal proceedings on the basis
compromise may be moved before the Trial Court.
The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that
2
Criminal Appeal No.001005/2025 disposed of on 28.02.2025
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026HC-KAR
the Trial Court could not have recorded the
settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the
High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the
proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been
forced to come to this Court.”
15. Learned counsel for petitioner also relies upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Manjunatha Vs. State of Karnataka
and Another3, wherein the application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C was allowed by quashing the
proceedings against accused wherein similar offences
are alleged.
16. With this background, the facts of the present case
are to be analyzed.
17. As discussed above, the alleged incident had taken
place when the victim was aged 17 years 11 months
21 days, i.e., only short of 9 days to become major.
The victim has taken decision that she should live
with the petitioner and after she attaining majority,
3
Criminal Petition No.4658/2024 disposed of on 10.07.2024
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
she married him. The marriage certificate produced
in this case revealed that only after victim attending
majority has married the petitioner and now they are
leading happy marital life and because of that she is
conceived and in her advanced age of pregnancy.
Thus, the victim would give birth to a child in a very
short period. That new born baby will not aware
about the facts which were happened earlier. If
proceedings against the petitioner are not quashed,
it would allow abuse of process of court because it is
already on record that victim has not supported the
case of prosecution in respect of the alleged offences
against petitioner.
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of
Mohammad Waseem Ahamad Vs. State4 held
that, when accused and victim got married and
victim gave birth to a child, then proceedings in
4
AIR OnLine 2022 KAR 314
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
criminal case, which are pending against the
petitioner, are to be quashed.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Madhukar & Ors.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another In
paragraph number 6 and 7 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 CrPC 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.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted
with an unusual situation where the FIR
invoking serious charges, including Section
376 IPC, was filed immediately following an
earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This
sequence of events lends a certain context to
the allegations and suggests that the second
FIR may have been a reactionary step.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
More importantly, the complainant in the
second FIR has unequivocally expressed her
desire not to pursue the case. She has
submitted that she is now married, settled in
her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her
peace and stability. Her stand is neither
tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently
maintained, including through an affidavit on
record, that she does not support the
prosecution and wants the matter to end. The
parties have also amicably resolved their
differences and arrived at a mutual
understanding. In these circumstances, the
continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose. It would only prolong
distress for all concerned, especially the
complainant, and burden the Courts without
the likelihood of a productive outcome.
20. Considering the above principles noted in all the
above citations, this Court is of the opinion that this
Court can exercise its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 even for the
offences which are not covered under Section 320
Cr.P.C/Section 359 of BNSS, 2023. Thus inherent
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 can be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings if the court is of the considered opinion
that continuation of criminal case is not in the
interest of parties and on the other hand ends of
justice would be secured if criminal proceedings are
quashed.
21. Even though the notice of this petition is served upon
respondent No.2, who is the first informant and
mother of the victim, she is unrepresented, which
shows that she is not having any objection to this
petition. If she is having serious objections, she
would have come forward to the court and would file
her objections.
22. The subsequent developments after filing the charge
sheet are that victim married petitioner and leading
happy married life with him and she is already in her
advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, to have peaceful
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026
HC-KAR
future life between petitioner and accused, criminal
proceedings against petitioner shall not be continued.
23. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the proceedings against the petitioner are to be
quashed.
24. For the above reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023/428 Cr.P.C is allowed.
ii. Proceedings against petitioner in Crime
No.60/2024 of Shirahatti Police Station
registered as S.C.No.40/2024 (POCSO Act),
pending 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 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, are
hereby quashed.
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6568
CRL.P No. 100997 of 2026HC-KAR
iii. All pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGEgab
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
