Karnataka High Court
Binod Kumar Bimal vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Pronounced on : 08.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10047 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
BINOD KUMAR BIMAL
S/O KAMALESHWARI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.C-05
PANCHDEEP NIKUNJ
NEAR BIMA HOSPITAL
NANDA NAGAR
MADHYA PRADESH - 452 011.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R.C.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SMT. MENAKA
W/O LATE SAMPANGI
2
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.73, ANANDAPURA
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI S.DORERAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., (528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.876/2025 (CR.NO.16/2022)
REGISTERED BY THE RAJAJINAGAR P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 354, 504, 506, 509 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 3(1)(e), 3(1)(h) AND 3(1)(r) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT,
BEFORE THE HON'BLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.11.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in
question entire proceedings in Special C.C.No.876 of 2025 arising
out of Crime No.16 of 2022 registered for offences punishable
under Sections 354, 504, 506, 509, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3,
3(1)(e), 3(1)(h), 3(1)(r) of the Schedule Caste and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short).
3
2. Heard Sri M.R.C. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Doreraju,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to
be registered on 11-02-2022 alleging that the petitioner who was in
a dominant position sexually harassed the 2nd respondent who was
an Attender under the petitioner and was being asked to do all
services to the petitioner. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime
No.16 of 2022 for several offences as afore-quoted. The Police
conduct investigation and file a 'B' report before the concerned
Court. It appears that the complainant was not heard while
accepting and closing the case on acceptance of 'B' report. The 2nd
respondent then had to approach this Court in Crl.P.No.3985 of
2023 and the matter was remitted back to the concerned Court to
pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The concerned Court
then secures a report of what had happened to pass an order on
4
the 'B' report that had already been filed. It is then the Court
rejects the 'B' report, takes cognizance of the offence against the
petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the
subject petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.R.C. Manohar
would vehemently contend that the police after investigation have
filed not one, but two 'B' reports. Notwithstanding the same, the
concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The offences
alleged are all frivolous, ingredients of which are completely absent
in the case at hand. Under the petitioner, close to 2500 people were
employed. It could not be said that the petitioner would eye on only
one or two. Getting a massage from the Attender was false. It is
the security services through which the complainant had been out-
sourced who has hatched a conspiracy to defame the petitioner, as
the petitioner did not yield to their demands. He would therefore,
seek quashment of proceedings.
5
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri S.Doreraju appearing
for the 2nd respondent/complainant would take this Court through
the statement recorded of the victim and the evidence that was let
in at the time of answering the protest petition and would submit
that it is not a case where this Court should interfere in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel
would submit that there is clear evidence of sexual harassment
from the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner being fully aware
of the fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Schedule Tribe has generated certain insult by hurling abuses
taking the caste of the complainant. In all, he would submit that the
petition must be rejected and trial must be permitted to continue.
6. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor Sri B.N.
Jagadeesha appearing for respondent No.1 would also toe the lines
of the complainant in contending that the evidence is clear from the
eye witnesses to what the petitioner was doing, being the head of
ESIC in Bangalore and, therefore, the proceedings must be
permitted to be continued.
6
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the
chain of events would not require reiteration. The 2nd respondent is
the complainant who was working as House Keeper on contract
basis in the ESIC Hospital, Rajajinagar. The complainant was
working for over 12 years by the time the petitioner takes position
that he held in the Hospital. On some occasions, the complainant
was also made to work in the premises of the petitioner. Alleging
that the petitioner has harassed the complainant by misusing his
official position by asking her to do body massage, wash his
clothes, die his hairs and knowing fully well that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste has hurled abuses, the complaint comes to be
registered by the 2nd respondent on 11-02-2022 which becomes
crime in Crime No.16 of 2022 for offences punishable under
Sections 354, 504, 506, 509, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3,
3(1)(e), 3(1)(h), 3(1)(r) of the Schedule Caste and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since the entire issue
7
now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice
the complaint. It reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ,
E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸Ágï,
gÁeÁf £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ,
gÁeÁf £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
EªÀjAzÀ
ೕನಕ 48 ವಷ ,
W/o ವಂಗತ ಸಂಪಂ ,
#73, ಆನಂದಪ ರ, ಾಮ ಾಜ ೇ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು PÀ£ÁðlPÀ - 560 018,
! ೈ# ಸಂ$ೆ%: 07829223340,
&ಷಯ: ಾ(ಾ)ನಗರದ ಇಎ,ಐ. ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ23 ಸ4ಚ60ಾ 7ಾ8 ಕ9ಾ 7ೆಲಸ ;ಾಡು=>ರುವ ನನ?ೆ
ಅ23ಯ ಅA7ಾBಗCಂದ ಆದ Dೈಂ ಕ Eರುಕುಳ ಮತು> eÁ= FಂದGೆ Hಾಗೂ ಾ1ಣ ೆದB7ೆ HಾE
ಅKಾಚ% ಶಬN ಂದ Fಂ .ದವರ ಮತು> ಬಲದಂಡ ಂದ )ೕತOಾಳP Bೕ=ಯ23 7ೆಲಸ
;ಾQ.7ೊಂಡವರ &ರುದR ದೂರು Oಾಖ2. ಕ1ಮ 7ೈ?ೊಳPTವಂ0ೆ PÉÆÃj,
;ಾನ% ೇ....
ೕಲUಂಡ &ಷಯ7ೆU ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟXಂ0ೆ ೕಲUಂಡ ೕನಕ 48 ವಷ ಅವಳದ Gಾನು YಂದುCದ ದ2ತ
Gಾನು YಂದುCದ ದ2ತ (ಾ=ಯ ಗ9ಾ ದುN, ಅ&Oಾ%ವಂತರು ಕೂಡ Hೌದು, ಕಡುಬಡತನ ಂದ
ಬದುಕು=>ರುವ Gಾನು Gಾನು ನನ[ ಗಂಡನನು[ ಕ9ೆದು7ೊಂಡು ಮಕUಳನು[ ¸Áಕುವ ಸಲುKಾ ಅ=
ಕಷX ಂದ ದುQಯು=>ದುN, ೕಲUಂಡ ಾ(ಾ)ನಗರದ ಇಎ,ಐ. ಆಸ/0ೆ1 ಯ23 ಸ4ಚ60ಾ 7ಾ8 ಕ ಾ
ಗು=>?ೆ ಆ\ಾರದQ ಸು;ಾರು ಹGೆ[ರಡು ವಷ ಗCಂದ 7ೆಲಸ ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆAಡು ಬಂ ದುN, ಉತ>ಮ
Hೆಸರನು[ ಪ_ೆ ರು0ೆ>ೕGೆ. ಆದ ೆ ಸು;ಾರು GಾಲುU ವಷ ಂದ ಇಎ,ಐ ಕ ೇB r r J¥sï (qÉ¥Æ
À ån
_ೈ ೆಕX` ಆa bೈGಾcd ) ಅA7ಾBeಾ Hೊರ ಾಜ%ದ fGೋg ಕು;ಾ` ) ೕ#' (AiÀiÁzÀªï)
ಎಂಬ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ PÀZÉÃjUÉ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ .ಬhಂ ಗಳನು[ ಕತ ವ%ದ ಸಮಯದ23 ತನ[
ಮGೆ?ೆ ಕ ೆ.7ೊಂಡು ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ PÉ®¸Àಗಳನು[ ;ಾQಸು=>ದNರು ಮತು> )ೕತOಾಳP Bೕ= 7ೆಲಸವನು[
;ಾQ.7ೊಂಡು ಹಲKಾರು ಮY9ೆಯB?ೆ Dೈಂ ಕ Eರುಕುಳವನು[ FೕQರು0ಾ> ೆ ಇವeಾ ರು
ಮeಾ Oೆ?ೆ ಅಂ) ದೂರನು[ Fೕಡಲು ಮುಂOೆ ಬರುವ ಲ3 ಅದರಂ0ೆ.. ನನ[ನು[ ಕೂಡ ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ
8
7ೆಲಸದ ಸಮಯದ23 ಮGೆಯ ಅಡು?ೆ 7ೆಲಸ7ೆU ಕ ೆದು ನನ?ೆ ಅಸಭ% Bೕ=ಯ23 ಕಣುj ಸF[ ;ಾಡುವ ದು,
ಅಡು?ೆ ;ಾಡು=>ರುವ ಸಂದಭ ಧ23 ೖ7ೈ ಮುಟXಲು ಪ1ಯ=[ಸುವ ದು. ಅ ೆ ೆತ>Dೆಯ23 Fಂತು
ಅಸಭ%Kಾ ವ= ಸುವ ದು, ೖ ಮkಾl ;ಾಡುವಂ0ೆ ಬಲವಂತ ;ಾಡುವ ದು, ತDೆ?ೆ ಬಣj, ಎmೆj
Hಾಕಲು ಒ0ಾ>oಸುವ ದು ಇದ7ೆU ಒಪ/ OಾNಗ Yಂ pಾqೆಯ23 ಅKಾಚ% ಶಬN ಂದ Fಂ ಸುವ ದು,
ಮತು> Fೕನು 7ೇಳP (ಾ=ಯವಳP HೇCದಷುX 7ೆಲಸ ;ಾಡು ಎಂದು (ಾ=FಂದGೆ ;ಾಡುವ ದು, ಈ
Bೕ=ಯ ಕೃತ%ಗ9ೆ ಂ ?ೆ Dೈಂ ಕ Oೌಜ ನ% ನ_ೆ.ದNಲ3Oೆ ಮGೆಯ ಾ ಲನು[ HಾE ನF[ಂದ ಎಲ3
7ೆಲಸವನು[ ( ತDೆ?ೆ ಕಲ` HಾE.7ೊಳPTವ ದು. ಮkಾl ;ಾಡುವಂ0ೆ ಒ0ಾ>oಸುವ ದು. ಅವರ ಒಳ
ವಸtಗಳನು[ 0ೊ9ೆಸುವ ದು. ಅವರ ೆuKೇv ಾw Gಾ ಕೂದಲನು[ (kೇ&ಂx) 0ೆ?ೆಯುವಂ0ೆ
ಕ ೆಯುವ ದು ;ಾQ.7ೊಂQರು0ಾ> ೆ.). ಇದ7ೆU ಅಸಮy= 0ೋB.Oಾಗ ನನ[ ೕDೆ ಇಲ3ಸಲ3ದ
ಆ ೋಪ ;ಾಡುವ ದು ಸಂಬಳವನು[ ಕಟುX ;ಾಡುವ Oಾ ಮತು> ಸುಳPT ದೂರು Oಾಖ2. 7ೇಸು
;ಾಡುವ Oಾ ಾ3z ೕ# ತಂತ1ವನು[ ;ಾಡು=>ದುN ಇವBಂದ ಸು;ಾರು GಾಲುU ವಷ ಗCಂದ
;ಾನ.ಕ ಮತು> OೈYಕKಾ Gೊಂದು Hೋ ದುN, ಈ &ಷಯದ23 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟX ?ೊ3ೕಬ#
;ಾ%GೇeÉäAv ಸಂkೆ{ಯ ಗು=>?ೆOಾರ ಾದ 0ಾರGಾಥ ಮತು> ಸೂಪ` Kೈಸ` &}ಾDಾ~.
ಅವರ23 =C.ದರು Fೕವ ಅವರು HೇCದಂ0ೆ 7ೇಳ ೇಕು ಸ4ಲ/ ಅqÀÓ,X ;ಾQ7ೊCT ಇಲ3 ದN ೆ ಅವರು
ನಮ?ೆ f# ೇ ಂv ;ಾಡುವ ಲ3 Fೕನು ಅqÉÓ,X ;ಾQ7ೊಂಡು ಅವರು HೇCದಂ0ೆ 7ೇಳP
ಇಲ3 ದN ೆ 7ೆಲಸ fಟುX Hೋಗು ಎಂದು ಅKಾಚ% ಶಬN ಂದ Fಂ . FೕGೇನು kಾ ಾGಾ Hೊಲಯ
(ಾ=ಯವ9ೇ FೕGೇನು ಸುಂದB Gಾ..Hೋಗು Hೋಗು ಎಂದು ಒ0ಾ>ಯವನು[ HೇB ಅKಾಚ% ಶಬN ಂದ
Fಂ . ಸಂಬಳವನು[ ಕಟುX ;ಾಡು0ೆ>ೕKೆ 7ೆಲಸ ಂದ 0ೆ?ೆದು Hಾಕುತ>Kೆ ಎಂದು ಾ3PÉäÃ# ;ಾQ
ೆದBಸು0ಾ> ೆ...
ಇದರ ಬ?ೆ€ ಾ(ಾ)ನಗರ ಇಎ¸ïಐ. ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ ಅQ.ನ# _ೈ ೆಕX` f) ಕೃಷjಮೂ= ಅವರ23
ಹಲKಾರು ಾB ಮನ& ;ಾQ7ೊಂಡರು ಅವರು ಸಹ ಇ23 ಒಳ?ೆ ಬರ ೇQ ಗು=>?ೆOಾರರು HೇCದಂ0ೆ
7ೇಳ ದN ೆ Fಮyನು[ 7ೆಲಸ ಂದ 0ೆ?ೆದು ºÁPÀÄ0ೆ>ೕGೆ ಎಂದು ಇವರು ಸಹ ನಮy ೕDೆ ಮY9ೆಯರು
ಅನ[Oೇ ಅKಾಚ% ಶಬN ಂದ Fಂ . ಅವನ ಕೃತ%7ೆU ಸಹ7ಾರ FೕQರು0ಾ> ೆ. ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ ಮುಖ% Qೕc
ನಮyನು[ ಒಳ?ೆ ;ಾತGಾಡಲು fwXರುವ ಲ3,
ಮತು> ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟX ?ೊ3ೕಬ# ;ಾ%GೇeÉäAv ಮುಖ%ಸ{ ಾದ 0ಾರGಾ• ಮತು> &}ಾDಾ~ ರವರು
ಇಎ,ಐ ಆಸ/0ೆ1ಯ .ಬhಂ Eಚc Q ಾ ೆಂ v ಅ23 7ೆಲಸ ;ಾಡು=>ರುವ ೕಪz ಎನು[ವ
ವ%E>oಂದ ಅವರ ಹಲKಾರು ಮಂ ಸಹಚರ ೊಂ ?ೆ ಬಂದು ?ೊ3ೕಬ# ;ಾ%GೇeÉäAv &ರುದR
ಏGಾದರೂ ;ಾತGಾQದ ೆ Fಮyನು[ kಾoಸುವ Oಾ ೆದB7ೆ HಾEರು0ಾ> ೆ.....
9
kಾ48 Gಾವ ಕಡುಬಡವ YಂದುCದ ಜGಾಂಗದವ ಾ ದುN ನಮ?ೆ ಈ 7ೆಲಸ Hೊರತು ಪQ. ೇ ೆ
eಾವ Oೇ ಆOಾಯ ಮತು> ಹಣದ ಮೂಲ ಇರುವ ಲ3. ಈ 7ೆಲಸವನು[ ನಂf ನಮy ಕುಟುಂಬ
ಬದುಕು=>ದುN ನನ[ ೕDೆ Dೈಂ ಕ Oೌಜ ನ% ಮತು> Hಾಗೂ ಮY9ಾ Oೌಜ ನ% ;ಾನವ ಹಕುU
ಉಲ3ಂಘGೆ ಾ3PÉäÃ# Hಾಗೂ ೌQಗಳನು[ fಟುX ಹDೆ3 ;ಾಡಲು ಪ1ಯತ[ ;ಾQ ನನ[ ೕDೆ Dೈಂ ಕ
Oೌಜ ನ% ನ_ೆ.ದ Q Q ಎa ಅA7ಾB fೕ ೕ# ಕು;ಾ` ಮತು> ಇದ7ೆU ಉ0ೆ>ೕಜನ FೕQದ
vÁgÁ£Áxï &}ಾDಾ~, ಕೃಷjಕು;ಾ` ಮತು> ನನ?ೆ ಾ1ಣ ೆದB7ೆ HಾEದ ೕಪz &ರುದR ದೂರು
Oಾಖ2. ಸೂಕ> 7ಾನೂನು ಕ1ಮ 7ೈ?ೊಂಡು ಸೂಕ> 7ಾ„NಯQ ಮY9ಾ Oೌಜ ನ% 7ಾ„N, Dೈಂ ಕ
Oೌಜ ನ%, 7ಾ„N ಾ1ಣ ೆದB7ೆ HಾEರುವ ದು, )ೕತOಾಳP, Bೕ= ದುQ.7ೊಂQರುವ ದು ಇOೆಲ3ವನೂ[
ಗಮF. ನಮ?ೆ Gಾ%ಯ 7ೊQಸ ೇ7ೆಂದು Fಮy23 ಮನ& ;ಾQ7ೊಳPT0ೆ>ೕKೆ...
ವಂದGೆಗ9ೆ ಂ ?ೆ
ಇಂ= ತಮy &}ಾ4.
¸À»/-
¢£ÁAPÀ: 11/02/2022.
ಸ{ಳ: ಾl)ನಗರ."
The Police then conduct investigation during which time the
statement of the complainant is recorded and a 'B' report is filed
before the concerned Court. On the 'B' report the 2nd respondent
files a protest memo contending that 'B' report must be rejected.
The concerned Court is said to have closed the proceedings by
accepting 'B' report contrary to law. Therefore, 2nd respondent
approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3985 of 2023 wherein
this Court by order dated 23-05-2023 remitted the matter back to
the hands of the concerned Court to hear the 2nd respondent and
10
then pass orders on the 'B' report. It is then the concerned Court
takes cognizance of the offence and registers the case against the
petitioner. The order of rejection of 'B' report and taking of
cognizance reads as follows:
"ORDERS
On going through the material on record, the complainant
has made specific allegation that the complainant was forced to
work in the home office of the accused situated near Rajajinagar
and in fact complainant has been sexually harassed as per the
complaint. In fact, the mobile phone seized of the CW-2 and
evidence of other witnesses before this Court and even the
protest made by the petitioners as per the paper publication and
the pen drive placed on record with retard to the incident prima
facie discloses there is cognizable offence being committed.
However, Investigating Officer has not followed due procedure
as per Rule 5, 6 and on registering the crime by the PSI,
Rajajinagar, the same has been handed to ACP, Malleshwaram
who has not made inspection of the premises nor obtained
opinion with regard to forensic report. The mobile recordings
made by Somashekar and even the B Report was accepted by
the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3985
of 2023. On going through the materials as observed an
opportunity is to be given to the complainant. This Court on
going through the videos recorded in the mobile phone finds
prima facie material to take cognizance against the accused.
Office is directed to keep the CD, Pen Drive Ex.C2 CD
seized by the Investigating Officer in PF No.24 of 2022 are to be
kept in safe custody. The Investigating Officer has failed to
even record the 164 statements of the victims. AS such there is
failure in conducting proper investigation as per Rule 9 of SC/ST
(POA)Rules, 1995. Accordingly, on going through the evidence
of petitioners, the B report submitted by ACP, Malleshwaram is
against the principles of natural justice and also the filing B
report is opposed to law. Accordingly, B report rejected and this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
11
ORDER
The office is directed to register Spl.Case.
Issue SS to accused returnable by 21-06-2025.
Office is directed to keep the CDs and the pen drive seized by the Investigating Officer and produced by the complainant in safe."
If the order of taking cognizance is noticed, it does not indicate as to for what offences the cognizance is taken after rejection of 'B' report, though there is ample material against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC including the offences under Sections 3(1)(e), 3(1)(h) and 3(1)(r) of the Act. The order of taking cognizance is absolutely bald.
9. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. RAVIKUMAR v. Mrs. K.M.C. VASANTHA1, while considering an identical circumstance, has held 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 1 ILR 2018 Kar. 1725 12 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 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 v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 S.C. 117.] (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court in between Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal [(1980) 2 SCC 91.] (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.
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, 13 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 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, 14 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."
(Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench holds as to what is to be done by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence on a 'B' report.
None of the postulates laid down by the coordinate Bench are even looked into by the concerned Court. Though the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant would merit complete acceptance that prima facie offences are met, the order of taking cognizance is not in consonance with law.
10. It is high time the concerned Courts must stop passing orders on taking cognizance holding it be a frolicsome act. Order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons have significance in criminal jurisprudence. It cannot be done in a cavalier manner, as is done in the case at hand. Without even indicating for what offences cognizance is taken and why 'B' report is rejected or why report of the Commissioner that the concerned Court had sought and secured 15 is more acceptable. All these are necessary to be considered by the concerned Court. In the light of the order of the concerned court being contrary to law, this Court is left with no option except to remit the matter back to the concerned Court for passing necessary orders, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, with particular reference to the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the case of RAVIKUMAR supra.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part and order dated 15-04-2025 passed in Special C.C.No.876 of 2025 is set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Bangalore to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and regulate its procedure thereafter.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:SS