Disposed¶48

Rajesh Joshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026CRL.P/664/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on settlement; joint affidavit by accused and de-facto complainant; offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023; C.C.No.71549/2025; XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore; Govindapura Police Station; offences not against the State; petition under 528 BNSS 2023; Criminal Petition disposed; proceedings quashed qua petitioners; single judge M. Nagaprasanna; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.71549/2025 pending before the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore quashed qua the petitioners. ¶48

Rajesh Joshi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:21991 CRL.P No. 664 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 664 OF 2026

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAJESH JOSHI, S/O JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A CHUNA LINE, NO.1, K G HALLI, BENGALURU – 560 045.

¶8

ANIL, S/O SRICHAND SHEKAR METHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT # 34, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD, GLASS FACTORY, ARABIC COLLEGE, BANGALORE – 560 045.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, by PADMAVATHI BY GOVINDAPURA PS, B K REPRESENTED BY ITS Location: High STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Court of HIGH COURT BUILDING, Karnataka BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

MANOHAR, S/O LATE VIJAYAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.35, 2^ND CROSS, SANDEEGAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR BARATA GAS, GOVINDAPURA BENGALURU – 560 045.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B N JAGADEESHA., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI.ASHWIN PRABHU K.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:21991 CRL.P No. 664 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS CRL.P FILED 528 BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.71549/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XI ACJM, BANGALORE WHICH IS INITIATED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN GOVINDAPURA P.S.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.71549/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023.

¶23

Heard Sri. Rohan S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Ashwin Prabhu K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶24

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties to the lis have settled the dispute among themselves and have filed a joint affidavit in that regard. The joint affidavit so filed reads as follows:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:21991 CRL.P No. 664 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

“JOINT AFFIDAVIT

¶29

We, Rajesh Joshi, S/o Joshi, Aged about 42 years, R/a: Chuna Line, .1, KG Halli, Bengaluru 560045 - Petitioner No.1

¶30

Anil, S/o Srichand Shekar Metha, Aged about 37 years, R/a: #34, Nagavara Main Road, Glass Factory, Arabic College, Banaglore - 560045 - Petitioner No.2

¶31

Manohar, S/o Late Vijayan, Aged about 46 Years, R/a: No.35, 2nd Cross, Sandeegappa Layout, Near Barata Gas, Govindapura, Bengaluru 560045 - Respondent No.2., do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶32

We state that the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are arraigned as Accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.71549/2025 for the alleged offences punishable under section 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 now pending before the Hon'ble XI Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore which is initiated by the Respondent/Govindapura PS, and the 2nd Respondent is the de-facto complainant in the above case and we are conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, we are swearing to this joint affidavit.

¶33

We state that the Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent are known to each other from many years and they reside in the same locality and even work together. Hence the 2nd Respondent has decided to settle the dispute, therefore the present joint affidavit.

¶34

We state that based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd Respondent the impugned proceedings have been initiated. We further state that due to the intervention of our family members, relatives, friends and well wishers we have decided to dissolve all our disputes pending between us. Hence in furtherance to that we have decided to resolve the matter under challenge in the present criminal petition.

¶35

We state that the Petitioners and Respondents work together and to have good cordial work environment, the 2nd Respondent intendeds to settle the present case and the Petitioners have also sought apologies from the 2nd Respondent. Hence in view of the good conduct of the Petitioners, the 2nd respondent is inclined to not to press charges against the Petitioners.

¶36

We state that if this Hon'ble is not pleased to quash the impugned proceedings, then we will suffer irreparable loss and great hardship.

¶37

We state that we are swearing to this affidavit voluntarily without any undue influence or force or threat.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:21991 CRL.P No. 664 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

We do hereby state that this is our name and signature and what is stated above are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, belief and information.”

¶42

The parties to the lis are present before the Court

¶43

and are identified by their respective counsel.

¶44

In the light of the joint affidavit being filed and offences not being against the State, I deem it appropriate to accept the joint affidavit and terminate the proceedings against these petitioners in the subject petition.

¶45

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Criminal Petition is disposed .

¶48

ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.71549/2025 pending before the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed qua these petitioners.

¶49

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶50

CBC