Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harish M T vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2909
WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 51134 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARISH M T
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A NO.58/2, 4TH 'L' CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 085
2. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O SIDDEGOWDRU,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/A NO.39/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
8TH CROSS, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 072
3. VENKATESH M.K.
S/O MADHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/A NO.10, 5TH 'A' CROSS,
16TH MAIN ROAD, SRINIVAS
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU
NV ...PETITIONERS
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS HALASURGATE POLICE
STATION, REPT. BY ITS STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, CUBBONPET,
BENGALURU - 560 002
2. SRI RAMANAPPA
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.14, 4TH CROSS, GANGAMMA
LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU 32.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2909
WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
ALSO AT OFFICE NO.18, 2ND FLOOR,
HMS COMPLEX, BEHIND HALASURUGATE
COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 002
3. ANANTHA MURTHY B G
S/O GANGACHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/A NO.14, 8TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD, ANANDA
NAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI,
BSK 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560085
4. KUMARASWAMY D S
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/A NO.36, MARUTHI KRUPA,
GAADIMUDDANNA ROAD,
KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GOPALA GOWDA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. K.N. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-F IN CRIME NO.242/2015
DATED 31.10.2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL.CMM,
BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.3813/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VITH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.242/2015 of Halasurgate Police Station, now pending in CC No.3813/2019 on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief -3- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Halasurgate Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 and 15 others, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506(B) read with Section 149 of IPC. The investigation was undertaken and 'B' summary report came to be filed. It is stated that the learned Magistrate accepted the B-report initially on 31.12.2016, when respondent No.2 has not appeared before the Court inspite of service of notice. It is thereafter, on 27.04.2017, respondent No.2 filed protest petition seeking reopening of the case. Learned Magistrate by setting aside the order dated 31.12.2016, referred the matter for further investigation. When further investigation was pending, on 18.05.2018 respondent No.2 appears to have filed the application requesting the Trial Court to accept the B- report as he is not interested in prosecuting the matter. As per the order dated 18.05.2018, again B-report was accepted by -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR the Trial Court by allowing the application filed by respondent No.2. It is thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are said to be the injured eye witnesses filed the protest petition. Based on the said protest petition, learned Magistrate recalled the order dated 18.05.2018 and directed the police for further investigation. It is stated that now charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard Sri.Satyanarayana Chalke S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rangaswamy, R. learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri Gopala Gowda B.H. learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri K.N.Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following grounds in support of his contentions to quash the criminal proceedings. Firstly, when once the learned Magistrate accepts the B-report after notifying the complainant, he becomes functus officio and he has no authority or jurisdiction -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR to accept the protest petition and to set aside the B-report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Magistrate never rejected the B-report nor accepted the protest petition, but set aside the order accepting the B-report and referred the matter for further investigation for which, he had no authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondent No.2 has filed an application stating that he has no intention to prosecute the criminal proceedings and accepting the said application, learned Magistrate again accepted the B-report. Thereby, rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that when it is only complainant/informant who can file the protest petition and when such protest petition is rejected by the Trial Court by accepting the B-report, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the witnesses to the incident could not have filed the protest petition. This procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law. Inspite of that, learned Magistrate recalled the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR order 18.05.2018 and directed for further investigation, for which he has no authority.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and another1 to contend that when B-report is filed by the Investigating officer, the learned Magistrate may either accept the report and drop the proceedings, or he may disagree with the report, if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further and he may take cognizance of the offences and issue process or he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC.
7. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the learned Magistrate is not duty bound to issue notice to the injured or relative of the injured/victim. The Court has held that such witnesses may have locus to appear before the Magistrate only at the time of consideration of the report and make their submission, but definitely not after accepting the B-report. 1 (1985) 2 SCC 537 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar Vs Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha2, to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has laid down a detailed procedure that is to be adopted by the learned Magistrate when a 'B' summary report is filed. None of these procedures as highlighted in paragraph 5 are followed by the learned Magistrate and therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is vitiated.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Magistrate will not have any jurisdiction to recall his own orders accepting the 'B' report and to direct investigation into the matter, that too, when respondent No.2 has filed an application stating that he has no objection to accept the 'B' report. Therefore, there is grave procedural irregularities committed by the learned Magistrate, which resulted in injustice to the petitioners.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not the informants/complainants. The Code of Criminal Procedure do 2 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR not contemplate the procedure to issue notice to the victims or the injured on filing of 'B' summary report. The Trial Court rightly issued the notice only to the informant and later accepted the 'B' report. The witnesses being the injured filing the Protest Petition and the same being accepted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 opposing the petition submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the injured eyewitnesses. They are the victims of crime. They came to know about filing of 'B' report and appeared before the learned Magistrate, filed the Protest Petition, which was taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. There is nothing wrong committed by the learned Magistrate. The further investigation was undertaken and the police filed the charge sheet, which makes out strong prima facie case against the petitioners.
14. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 also places reliance on the decision of Bhagwant Singh (supra), to contend that in paragraph 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR a situation where it is held that even the injured can appear before the learned Magistrate and file the Protest Petition, even though he is not entitled for any notice from the learned Magistrate.
15. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lagamanna Gangappa Salagere Vs Sri Laxman3, to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that acceptance of 'B' report is only a tentative judicial order. The learned Magistrate will have power to order for further investigation even in a case where 'B' report was already accepted.
16. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 contends that minor deviation from the procedure as contemplated under Code of Criminal Procedure will not vitiate the entire order passed by the learned Magistrate. When there are sufficient materials that are placed before the Court to constitute the offences against the accused, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
3 ILR 2000 KAR 4015
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR
17. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
18. On perusal of the materials on record, it is clear that respondent No.2 being one of the injured - eye witness filed the first information, based on the same, the investigation was undertaken and B-report came to be filed. The notice was issued to the informant - respondent No.2, inspite of service of notice he has not appeared, which resulted in the learned Magistrate accepting the B-report. However, later respondent No.2 appeared before the learned Magistrate, filed the protest petition and sought for further investigation. Learned Magistrate passed an order recalling the earlier order accepting the B-report and referred the matter for further investigation. When such further investigation was pending, respondent No.2
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR again appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed the memo stating that he has no objection to accept the B-report by the learned Magistrate once again. The said memo was accepted by the learned Magistrate and even though, further investigation in the matter was pending, learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the B-report, on the basis of the memo that was filed by respondent No.2.
19. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also the injured eyewitness. They are the victims as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. They after coming to know about closure of complaint by accepting the B-report, appears to have filed the protest petition and also an application to recall the order accepting B-report. The impugned order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the application and directing the Investigating Officer to file the final report.
20. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that when learned Magistrate accepts the B-report he become functus officio and he could not have recalled his own order. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra).
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court has never stated that the learned Magistrate will become a functus officio and cannot recall his own order. On the facts of the case, it was decided holding that it is only the complainant who is entitled for notice after filing of B-report and the victims can appear voluntarily to oppose acceptance of B-report. It is also held that non issuance of notice to the victims individually will not vitiate the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lagamanna Gangappa Salagere (supra), where the Court has held referring to the decision of this Court in Kishan rao Vs State of Mysore4, where this Court accepted the finding that there is no provision in the Code prohibiting a Magistrate from taking cognizance of a charge sheet and proceeding with the trial of the case, even though the B-report submitted by the Police has been accepted by him. Placing reliance on the same, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that acceptance of B- report is only a tentative judicial order and the learned 4 1966(1) Mys.L.J. 127
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR Magistrate has always got power to order for further investigation in the case even after acceptance of 'B' report submitted by the police.
23. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and Others Vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu and another5 to contend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the victims as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.PC. Learned counsel for the petitioners never disputed the fact that respondent No.3 and 4 are also the victims of the crime. The wound certificate pertaining to respondent Nos.3 and 4 discloses tat they have also sustained injuries in the incident in question.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and Others (supra), considered the right of the victim to be present when the bail application filed by the accused was being considered by the Court, has held that the victim has right to participate in the trial and the victim will have right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps or to 5 (2022) 9 SCC 321
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR be heard at every crucial stage of criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant of cancellation of bail, as the same was duly recognized by the Committee.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the repeated judicial intervention coupled with recommendations made from time to time, which prompted Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 inserting the definition of the word 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of Cr.PC and also statutorily recognizing various rights of such victim at different stages of trial.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision referred to its earlier decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali Vs State of Karnataka6, to hold that when the victim is having right to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C, there was need to give adequate representation to the victims in criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed that the victim is having the right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. 6 2019 (2) SCC 752
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment at paragraphs and 23 held as under:
" 22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of "State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a "victim" of the crime.
23. A "victim" within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a "victim" has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and "complainant/informant" are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR is also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a "victim" need not be the complainant or informant of a felony."
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the provisions in the special enactments like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, making it obligatory to hear the victim at the time of granting bail and held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1 First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2 Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceedings, they must be accorded with an
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a Court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses."
29. Even though, the Code of Criminal Procedure is repealed and BNSS is brought into effect, the right of the victim is equally recognized.
30. In the present case, when there is no dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the victims of crime, it cannot be said that they have no locus standi to appear before the Magistrate and to file a protest petition or application seeking to reject the 'B' report either to accept the protest petition or to refer the matter for further investigation. It is the discretion on the part of learned Magistrate either to accept the protest petition on the basis of materials that are placed on record, if
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR the same are sufficient to reject 'B' report or to refer the matter for further investigation, if he is of the opinion that such further investigation may throw much light and enable him to pass necessary orders on the protest petition or the application filed by the victim. I do not find any illegality if such a course of action is adopted by the learned Magistrate.
31. In the present case, admittedly, at the first instance 'B' report was accepted. The said order was recalled at the instance of respondent No.2 and the matter was referred for further investigation. When the further investigation was in progress, respondent No.2 has filed a memo to accept the 'B' report, and again the 'B' report was accepted. At this stage, respondent Nos.3 and 4 appeared before Trial Court, filed the protest petition as well as an application to recall the order accepting the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and recalled his order accepting the 'B' report on the basis of memo filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and called for final report by the Investigating Officer.
32. The Courts cannot adopt too technical approach while dealing with the men and materials. No prejudice
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019 HC-KAR whatsoever is caused to the petitioners from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are admittedly the victims. By way of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has called upon the final report by the Investigating Officer, the same will be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law in the presence of the petitioners - accused, respondent Nos.2 - the informant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 - the injured eye witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief in the present petition. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV/BH/MKM - CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1