Karnataka HC Quashes Rape, POCSO Case, Citing Couple’s Marriage After Complainant Turned 18 And Their Ages—21 And 17—At Alleged Offence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, having regard to the parties’ subsequent marriage and circumstances.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, quashed the order framing charges dated 5 August 2024 and all proceedings in Special Case (P) No. 99/2024, arising from Oorgaum Police Crime No. 29/2024.

It also directed

Any pending application was disposed of.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 complained to Oorgaum Police on 16 April 2024, leading to registration of Crime No. 29/2024 for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) and Section 376 IPC.

pp. 2–3

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 9 June 2024; the petitioner was on bail, and the Special Court framed charges on 5 August 2024.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner sought to quash the charges and proceedings. The petitioner and respondent No. 2, who was stated to have been 17 at the time of the alleged offences, married after she attained majority on 9 May 2025; a marriage invitation and certificate were produced.

pp. 3–5

Both appeared before the High Court. Respondent No. 2 confirmed the marriage and that they were living together.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, having regard to the parties’ subsequent marriage and circumstances.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed notwithstanding that the alleged offences were serious and respondent No. 2 could not be treated as having consented to the alleged acts.

p. 6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice; the Court invoked that power to quash the proceedings.

p. 6

The charges arose under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, concerning repeated rape, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

pp. 2, 6–7

The judgment cites no precedent and sets out no separate legal test for quashing such proceedings.

Although an application under Sections 321 and 482 CrPC sought permission to compound the offences, the Court’s operative order quashed the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction.

pp. 3–4, 6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 321

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offences and expressly noted that respondent No. 2 could not be said to have consented to the alleged acts.

p. 6

It nevertheless considered that, at the time, the petitioner was 21 and respondent No. 2 was 17, the age gap was not substantial, and the allegations arose in the context of adolescent love.

p. 6

The Court also relied on the parties’ marriage after respondent No. 2 attained majority, their shared residence, and her confirmation that the petitioner and his family were caring for her.

pp. 5–6

It concluded that continuing the prosecution would leave criminal proceedings hanging over their marital life and that quashing was in the interest of justice.

p. 6