The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 of the CrPC, praying to issue a writ of certiorari - mandamus or any other writ, rejecting the B-summary-report pending consideration in the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, arising out of the FIR, and direct the learned Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to subsequently proceed to take cognizance of the protest-petition.
The Court observed that the Trial Court could consider taking cognizance of the offense by recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and other witnesses and either take cognizance or overrule the objections and close it.
Brief Facts:
The respondent registered Crime for the offences punishable under Sections 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent after conducting an investigation filed a 'B' report on 18.12.2020. A notice of the 'B' report was served on the petitioner by the respondent as well as by the Trial Court. The petitioner entered an appearance and filed a protest petition against acceptance of the 'B' report. The Trial Court without rejecting the 'B' report proceeded to record the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses.
Being aggrieved by the procedure so adopted by the Trial Court, the petitioner/complainant is before this Court seeking appropriate directions.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Trial Court was bound to consider the acceptance or rejection of the 'B' report based on the assertions made in the protest petition filed by him and only then it could proceed to record the sworn statement of the petitioner and other witnesses. He argued that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court in recording the statement of witnesses even before rejecting the 'B' report is an incorrect procedure that is susceptible to challenge before the higher Court and the prosecution could be terminated.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Trial Court by recording the sworn statement of the petitioner had impliedly rejected the 'B' report and therefore, there is no need to issue any direction to comply with the judgment referred above.
The Court observed that once a 'B' report is filed by the respondent, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to issue notice to the complainant before accepting the 'B' report. Once that is done, the petitioner may file a protest petition against the acceptance of the 'B' report. The Trial Court is then bound to consider the acceptance of the 'B' report in view of the protest petition filed and the assertions made in the protest petition. It is only thereafter that the Trial Court could consider taking cognizance of the offense by recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and other witnesses and either take cognizance or overrule the objections and close it.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Trial Court may consider the 'B' report in accordance with the law and thereafter proceed and this shall be complied with within three months from today.
Case Title: Professor Dr. Dhirendra v. State of Karnataka
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R. Nataraj
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 25651 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Prof. Dr. Dhirendra V. Kubair
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Subramanyam
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
