SRI. JAGANNATH OJHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SRI. JAGANNATH OJHA (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR ) AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O NITYANANDA OJHA R/A NO F-102, F BLOCK, G. R. LAVENDER, NEAR M.S.RAMAIAH SOUTH CITY J. P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076. SMT. SANTILATA OJHA (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR ) AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O NITYANANDA OJHA R/ASHANTHIKUTIRA, ALARPUR, KANDARPUR, CUTTACK, ODISHA-754100. SMT. LAXMIPRIYA OJHA (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR ) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O NITYANANDA OJHA THA ATLANTIC, R/A NO 401, TOWER-B, OPP. S.R.P. GROUP, MAKARPUR ROAD, VADODARA, GUJARAT-390 010. SMT. MAMUNIOJHA @ PRAVATI OJHA, (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR ) C/OLAXMIDHAR OJHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/ABUDHAPADA, ANAKHLA, JAGATSINHAPUR, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24854 CRL.P No. 3874 of 2025 HC-KAR

ODISHA-754 102. SRI TAPAN KUMAR OJHA (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR ) AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O NITYANANDA OJHA RESIDING AT ALARPUR, POST-KANDARPUR, KANDAPUR PS, CUTTACK-754 100. SRI GEETHANJALI OJHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI TAPAN KUMAR OJHA RESIDING AT ALARPUR, POST-KANDARPUR, KANDAPUR PS, CUTTACK-754 100. (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. SMT. NIRUPAMA OJHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O BAISHNAB CHARAN OJHA, R/A PLOT NO.47, MAHANADI VIHAR, PS - CHAULIAGANJ POLICE STATION, CUTTACK, ODISHA-753 004. (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1 SMT. RAJAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.*10725/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX A.C.M.M BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: *Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 01.08.2025. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24854 CRL.P No. 3874 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:

(a) To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. .*10725/2018 file of the XXX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. (b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint before respondent No.1 police in Crime No.399/2017, which culminated In C.C.No. .*10725/2018 before the Trial Court, punishable for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 506, 109 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in Civil Petition No.3/2019 before the Family Court, Cuttack, ended up in settlement, wherein both parties settled *Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 01.08.2025. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24854 CRL.P No. 3874 of 2025 HC-KAR the matrimonial dispute with mutual consent and further agreed to co-operate for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court. The relevant portion of the Application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, filed before the Family Court, Cuttack, reads as under:

(H) That within the said 75 days from the date of order, the Petitioner No1. shall withdraw all the Criminal Cases like D.V. Case, G.R. Cases pending before different courts initiated by the petitioner No.1 against the petitioner No.2 making free the husband (Petitioner No.2) from its all criminal liabilities.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner No.1-accused and respondent No.2- complainant have settled the matrimonial dispute and also agreed to co-operate for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No. .*10725/2018 pending before the Trial Court, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed.