Karnataka High Court
Sri. D. Parthasarathi vs Sri. Sudhakar on 20 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10687
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D. PARTHASARATHI,
DEAD BY LRS.
1(A) SMT.SATHYAVATHY,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
W/O.LATE D.PARTHASARATHY,
RESIDING AT NO.7, LAXMI KRUPA,
PARK ROAD, BALEPETE,
NEAR CHIKKA LALBAGH,
UPPARPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
1(B) SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI MD.,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
signed by D/O.LATE D.PARTHASARATHY,
KAVYA R RESIDING AT NO.165,
Location: 5TH MAIN, NCR II STAGE,
High court of
II PHASE, NEAR NANDINI THEATRE,
Karnataka
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 086.
1(C) SRINATH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O.LATE D.PARTHASARATHY,
RESIDING AT NO.7, LAXMI KRUPA,
PARK ROAD, BALEPETE,
NEAR CHIKKA LALBAGH,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10687
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023
HC-KAR
UPPARPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
1(D) SMT.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O.LATE D.PARTHASARATHY,
RESIDING AT NO.7, LAXMI KRUPA,
PARK ROAD, BALEPETE,
NEAR CHIKKA LALBAGH,
UPPARPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KARTHIK S, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.SUDHAKAR,
S/O PEARL,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.15/4, 5TH CROSS,
MISSION ROAD,
KARAGAPPA GARDEN,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. SMT.FLORENCE REETA,
W/O S DAVID LAWRENCE,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.114, VIVEKNAGAR POST
MAIN ROAD, OPP CHOICE TAILORS
BENGALURU - 560 047.
3. SMT.SARA SWARNALATHA,
W/O LATE MATHEW PETER,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.2, 2ND CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10687
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023
HC-KAR
KENCHAPPA BADAVANE,
VARANASI MAIN ROAD,
ANANDAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
(DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2026)
4. SMT.HANA RATHANVATHI,
W/O PRADEEP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RA/T NO.316, 1ST MAIN,
5THC ROSS, AMARAVATHI NAGAR,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
5. HENRI ABRAHAM PETER,
S/O LATE MATHEW PETER,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RA/T NO 2, 2ND CROSS,
KENCHAPPA BADAVANE,
VARANASI MAIN ROAD,
ANANDAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
(DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2026)
6. PRDEEP KUMAR,
S/O LATE S PAUL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.317, 1ST MAIN,
5TH CROSS, AMARVATHI NAGAR,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
7. DAVID LAWRENCE WILFRED,
S/O LATE SAMUEL PAUL,
MAJOR,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10687
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023
HC-KAR
RA/T NO.144/B, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
MAIN ROAD, OPP CHOICE TAILORS,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
8. SRI D REBECA CHRISTIAN,
D/O DAVID LAWRENCE WILFRED,
RA/T NO.144/B, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
MAIN ROAD, OPP CHOICE TAILORS,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
9. SMT.D.SHEEBA PAUL,
D/O.DAVID LAWRENCE WILFRED,
RA/T NO.144/B, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
MAIN ROAD, OPP CHOICE TAILORS,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
10. PETER ANANDRAJU,
S/O LATE SAMUEL SUNDAR RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RA/T NO.11, 5TH B CROSS,
R A ROAD, EJIPURA,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
11. SMT SERINA IRINI ELIJEBETH RAJU,
W/O PETER ANANDARAJU,
MAJOR,
RA/T NO.11, 5TH B CROSS,
R A ROAD, EJIPURA,
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, V/O/D: 08.01.2025;
R2, R4, R6, R10 & R11 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
SERVICE OF NOTICE ACCEPTED IN R/O R7 TO R9
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10687
CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023
HC-KAR
V/O/D: 08.01.2025;
R3 & R5 ARE DELETED V/O/D: 20.02.2026)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE A
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2019, MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT AND TRIAL COURT TO REGISTER
CRIMINAL CASE AND TRY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 418, 420, 464, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
The defacto-complainant is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.02.2019 passed in Crime No.39/2016 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Respondents who are served in this matter have remained unrepresented before this Court.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR
3. Petitioner has filed a private complaint against the respondent in PCR.No.96/2014 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District and the learned Magistrate on 07.03.2014, had referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police station in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC.
Kodugodi Police had therefore registered FIR in Crime No.39/2016 against the respondents herein for offences punishable under Section 417, 418, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and after completing investigation had filed B-Final report in the said case. The Defacto-
complainant had filed objections before the Court of learned Magistrate and had opposed acceptance of the B-Final report filed in Crime No.39/2016. The learned Magistrate, vide the order impugned, has dismissed the complaint in exercise of his powers under Section 203 of Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto-complainant is before this Court.
-7-NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the Private Complaint in PCR.No.96/2014 which was filed by the defacto-complainant before the Court of Additional Chief Jurisdictional Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District was referred to Station House Officer, Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District on 07.03.2014 as provided under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. Thereafter, FIR in Crime No.39/2016 was registered by Kadugodi Police Station against the respondents herein and after completing investigation, B-Final report was filed in the said case. It is not in dispute that the defacto-complainant had filed objections before the learned Magistrate, opposing acceptance of the B-Final report filed in Crime No.39/2016 on the ground that the investigation officer had not conducted proper investigation. The learned Magistrate without passing any orders on the B-Final report filed in Crime No.39/2016 has proceeded to hear the arguments of the complainant and vide order impugned has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR of Cr.PC. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous. The learned Magistrate ought to have passed an order either accepting or rejecting the B-Final report, before proceeding further to hear and dispose of the complaint in exercise of his powers under Section 203 of Cr.PC. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR.
RAVIKUMAR VS. MRS.K.M.C.VASANTHA AND ANOTHER - ILR 2018 KAR 1725. In the said case, this Court has laid down the guidelines to be followed up by the learned Magistrate in a case where B-Final report is filed, the same reads as follows:
"5. The procedure followed by the Learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law. It is well recognized principle of law that, once the Police submit 'B' Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the Court has to examine the contents of 'B' Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the Police have done Investigation in a proper manner or not and if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR conducted properly, the Court has got some options to be followed, which are,-
1) The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the Investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in between ABHINANDAN JHA vs. DINESH MISHRA (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court in between KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (second head note.)
ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process.
iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.
iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C.
v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials collected by the police in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr.P.C. are not
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR so sufficient, however, there are sufficient materials which disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused, the court can still take cognizance of the offence/s under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the original complaint or the protest petition as the case may be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses if any and also looking into complaint/Protest Petition and contents therein, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue of process he can still direct the investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C., to be made by a Police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the above eventuality, care should be taken that, the case shall not be referred to the Police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR
vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be.
vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, on examination of the allegations made in the Protest Petition or in the complaint, as the case may be and also after perusal of the sworn statement, then he has to record his opinion judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by exercising power u/s.204 of Cr.P.C".
5. The learned Magistrate has failed to follow the aforesaid proceedings laid down by this Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar case (supra) and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal revision petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10687 CRL.RP No. 1345 of 2023 HC-KAR ii. The impugned order dated 22.02.2019 passed in Crime No.39/2016 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside and the matter is remitted with a direction to consider the matter afresh from the stage of filing the B-Final report, in the light of observations made herein above and also taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar case (supra).
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7