Karnataka High Court
Mr. C. Rajashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
WP No. 14960 of 2024
C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14960 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14952 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 14960/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. C. RAJASHEKAR
S/O. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FLATS NO. A-05 AND A-35,
GR SHANTHI NIVAS APARTMENTS,
AISHWARAYA CRYSTAL LAYOUT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
SINGASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 068.
Digitally
signed by 2. MRS. PREETHI RAJASHEKAR
VANAMALA W/O. MR. C. RAJASHEKAR,
N
Location: AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HIGH FLATS NO. A-05 AND A-35,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GR SHANTHI NIVAS,
APARTMENTS,
AISHWARAYA CRYSTAL LAYOUT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
SINGASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK G V.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
WP No. 14960 of 2024
C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BEGUR POLICE STATION-560 068,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. S. RAMESH NARAYAN
S/O. SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OWNER OF A01, GROUND FLOOR
GR SHANTI NIVAS APARTMENTS,
AISHWARAYA CRYSTAL LAYOUT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
SINGASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. RAMESH NARAYAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON- R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CRPC PRAYING TO A) THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2024
PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, IN THE CC NO. 7524/2024,
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TAKING COGNISANCE OF THE
OFFENCES, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L ABOVE AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE THEREOF.B) PERMIT THE R1 TO CLOSE THE
CRIMINAL CASE IN CRIME NO. 0202/2021 IN TERMS OF THE
CLOSURE REPORT BEARING NO. 202/2021, PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-K.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
WP No. 14960 of 2024
C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024
IN WP NO. 14952/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. U K BALACHANDAR
S/O R UTHANDI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
A32, G R SHANTHINIVAS APARTMENT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
SINGASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560008
2. MRS GLORY SUSSANNA BIRD
D/O MR HORACE BIRD
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
A11, G R SHANTHINIVAS APARTMENT,
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD,
SINGASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560008
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK G V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BEGUR POLICE STATION - 560068
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001
2. MR S RAMESH NARAYAN
S/O SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OWNER OF A01,
GROUND FLOOR GR
SHANTI NIVAS APARTMENTS
AISHWARAYA CRYSTAL LAYOUT
MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD
SINGASANDRA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
WP No. 14960 of 2024
C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024
BANGALORE-560068
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. RAMESH NARAYAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON/R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) THE
ORDER DATED 22/02/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE, IN THE CC NO. 7524/2024, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS TAKING COGNISANCE OF THE OFFENCES,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE L ABOVE AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE THEREOF.B) PERMIT THE R1 TO CLOSE
THE CRIMINAL CASE IN CRIME NO. 0202/2021 IN TERMS
OF THE CLOSURE REPORT BEARING NO. 202/2021,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In these petitions, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"a) The order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the
Hon'ble III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in
the CC No. 7524/2024, against the Petitioners taking
cognisance of the offences, produced as ANNEXURE L
above and as a consequence thereof
b) Permit the 1st Respondent to close the
criminal case in Crime No. 0202/2021 in terms of the closure
report bearing No. 202/2021, produced as ANNEXURE K.
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
"a) The order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the
Hon'ble III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in
the CC No. 7524/2024, against the Petitioners taking
cognisance of the offences, produced as ANNEXURE L
above and as a consequence thereof
b. Permit the 1st Respondent to close the criminal
case in Crime No. 0202/2021 in terms of the closure report
bearing No. 202/2021, produced as ANNEXURE K."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State and
respondent No.2/party-in-person and perused the material on
record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned
counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order dated
28.07.2023 rejecting the 'B' Report submitted by the Police as well
as the subsequent order dated 22.02.2024 taking cognizance for
the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 465, 419, 406,
201 read with Section 34 of IPC as against the petitioners in order
to point out that the order dated 28.07.2023 rejecting the 'B' Report
is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
assigning valid and cogent reasons as to why the 'B' Report filed by
respondent No.1 - Police Authorities was rejected and the same
being contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.
Ravikumar Vs. K.M.C. Vasantha and Another reported in 2018
ILR Kar. 1725, the impugned order deserve to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader as
well as respondent No.2/party-in-person would submit that there is
no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
5. In addition thereto, respondent No.2/party-in-person
would invite my attention to the statement of objections as well as
the protest petition filed by him in order to contend that there are
several illegalities committed by the petitioners and the trial Court
was justified in rejecting the 'B' Report and recording the sole
statement of respondent No.2 and taking cognizance of the
offences by passing the impugned orders, which do not warrant
inference by this Court in the present petitions.
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
there are several allegations and counter allegations made by the
petitioners and respondent No.2/party-in-person against each
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
other. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record
that the complaint given by respondent No.2 culminated in a 'B'
Report dated 26.04.2023 to which respondent No.2/party-in-person
filed a detailed protest petition along with the documentary
evidence. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated
28.07.2023 rejecting the 'B' Report will clearly indicate that the
principles enunciated by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar's case
(supra) have been contravened by the learned Magistrate. In this
Context, in Dr. Ravikumar's case (supra), this Court has held as
under:
"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 conducted properly, the Court has got some
options to be followed, which are,-
i) 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
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
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 AIR 1968 S.C.
117 between Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra
(para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex
Court reported in (1980) 2 SCC 91
between Kamalapati Trivedi v. 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 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
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 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 the 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
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.
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.
But, none of these procedures have been followed by the
Learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen
from the records, the Learned Magistrate even without
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
rejecting the 'B' Summary Report and without taking
cognizance of the offences, but after going through the
contents of the Protest Petition has directly provided
opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement.
On the basis of the contents of the Protest Petition, and
after relying upon the contents of the Protest Petition and
the sworn statement, the Learned Magistrate has rejected
the 'B' Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting
the horse behind the Cart.
6. Of course, the contents of the Protest Petition
before taking cognizance can only be used for a limited
purpose of ascertaining whether the investigation done by
the Police is proper and correct. Therefore, the Learned
Magistrate has committed a serious error in not passing any
orders on the 'B' Summary Report before taking cognizance
on the basis of the Protest Petition.
7. Issuance of summons to the accused will have a
serious repercussion, i.e., calling upon a person to the
Court is also a very serious act of the Court. Therefore, the
procedure contemplated as noted above has to be very
scrupulously and meticulously followed by the Court. The
Magistrate has to explore all the options as noted above in
accordance with law at right stages, which has not been
done in this particular case. The learned Magistrate has
relied upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the
sworn statement for the purpose of rejecting the 'B'
Summary Report, which is not proper and correct. He has
to pass orders on the 'B' Summary report before taking
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
cognizance on the Protest Petition for the reasons already
narrated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon many rulings as to how the contents of the Protest
Petition and the sworn statement of the complainant and
statements of his witnesses have to be considered. There is
no need to consider those rulings in view of the fact that the
Learned Magistrate, has committed the above said serious
procedural irregularities and defects which are incurable in
nature, and on which ground itself the order is not
sustainable.
9. For the above said reasons, I am of the opinion that
the Learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned,
without following the proper procedure. If the Learned
Magistrate simply looks into Sections 200 to 204 of Cr. P.C.
that itself is sufficient and the provisions themselves would
guide the Magistrate as to how he has to act upon. The non
application of judicious mind to the statutory provisions in
this case led to the irregularities committed by the Learned
Magistrate. Hence, the said order is liable to be set-aside.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. The order dated 30.7.2015
passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
Chikkamagaluru in CC No. 620/2015 (Crime No. 23/2014 of
Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station), is hereby set-aside.
The entire matter stands restored on to the file of the
Learned Magistrate with a direction to follow the procedure
as narrated in the body of this order and only after looking
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
into the provisions of Sections 200 and 204 of Cr. P.C.
meticulously, the Learned Magistrate has to pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law."
7. In the instant cases, as stated earlier, in the absence
of cogent or valid reasons given by the learned Magistrate while
rejecting the 'B' Report by passing the impugned orders, which is
clearly a cryptic, laconic, un-reasoned and non-speaking order, I
am of the considered opinion that the order dated 28.07.2023 as
well as the subsequent impugned order dated 22.02.2024 taking
cognizance, deserve to be quashed and the matters remitted back
to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the 'B' Report as
well as the protest petition filed by respondent No.2/party-in-person
and the documents produced/to be produced by him and to
proceed further in accordance with law.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a. The petitions are hereby allowed.
b. The order 28.07.2023 and the subsequent
impugned order dated 22.02.2024 in both the
petitions are quashed.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4081
c. The matters are remitted back to the learned
Magistrate for reconsideration of the 'B' Report
as well as the protest petition afresh in
accordance with law.
d. The respondent No.2 shall appear before the
learned Magistrate on 10.02.2025 at 11:00 a.m.
e. On that day, liberty is reserved in favour of the
respondent No.2/party-in-person to file
additional pleadings, documents etc., which
shall be considered by the learned Magistrate
along with the protest petition as well as the 'B'
Report in accordance with law.
f. The learned Magistrate shall provide an
opportunity of hearing to respondent No.2 and
reconsider the 'B' Report and the protest petition
and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
RB
