Karnataka High Court
Sri Radhakrishna A vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3043 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2022
IN CRL.P NO. 3043/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RADHAKRISHNA A
S/O RAJENDRAPPA DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
(SHOWN AS ASSOCIATE
TRUSTEE OF DR. AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI
BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR)
PRESENTLY CHAIRMAN
GOVERNING COUNCIL
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL
COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 045
2. SRI. V.S KUBER
Digitally signed by
PRASHANTH N V S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
Court of Karnataka
(SHOWN AS FOUNDER
TRUSTEE, OF DR. AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI
BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR)
PRESENTLY CHAIRMAN
THE ANANDA SOCIAL AND
EDUCATIONAL TRUST
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL
COLLEGE CAMPUS, K.G. HALLI
BENGALURU - 560 045
3. SRI. H.S. MAHADEV PRASAD
S/O LATE SHIVASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
(SHOWN AS ASSOCIATE
TRUSTEE OF DR. AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI
BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR)
PRESENTLY MANAGING TRUSTEE
ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL
TRUST, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL
COLLEGE CAMPUS, K.G. HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 045
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR
FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION
SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI. SHIVALINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S./O CHIKKALINGAIAH
NO. 4/2, ASHIRWAD
SUMANGALI SEVASHRAMA
OPPOSITE, SHREE
VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 032
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DATED 08.03.2019 C.C. NO. 9564/2019
DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE BY TAKING
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 471
R/W SEC 34 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT AND NOT MAINTAINABLE.
IN CRL.P NO. 3073/2022
BETWEEN:
1. DR. S. V. DIVAKAR
S/O S.J. VENKATA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
(SHOWN AS PROFESSOR
DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL
COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI,
BANGALORE CITY
KARNATAKA 560045 IN FIR)
NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
SINCE FROM: FEBRUARY 2015
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 045
2. B. RAMESH
S/O LATE B. ASHWANTHANARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
(SHOWN AS T. RAMESH
TYPIST IN DR. AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.H. HALLI,
BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA 560 045 IN FIR)
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
STENOGRAPHER
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KADUGONDANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 045
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR
FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION
SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI. SHIVALINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S./O CHIKKALINGAIAH
NO. 4/2, ASHIRWAD
SUMANGALI SEVASHRAMA
OPPOSITE, SHREE
VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 032
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DATED 08.03.2019 C.C. NO. 9564/2019
DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE BY TAKING
COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 471
R/W SEC 34 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT AND NOT MAINTAINABLE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL COMMON ORDER
Petitioners in Crl.P.No.3043/2022 being accused Nos.2, 3
and 7 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.3073/2022 being accused
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
Nos.13 and 14 in CC No.9564/2019 pending on the file of the
learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the order dated 08.03.2019
taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections
420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'the IPC').
2. Heard Sri. Balagangadhar G.S., learned counsel for
the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Raksha
Keerthana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the
materials on record.
3. 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 'Affirmative' for
the following:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
REASONS
4. Respondent No.2 has filed the First Information with
Devarajeevanahalli police against accused Nos.1 to 16 alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The investigation was
undertaken and the investigating officer has filed the B-report
stating that even after collecting the documents and recording
the statements of the witnesses, he could not find sufficient
materials to constitute the offences as alleged by the
complainant.
5. Pursuant to filing of B-report, respondent
No.2/informant was notified. He appeared before the Trial
Court and filed the protest petition. The sworn statement of
respondent No.2 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate.
On the basis of the same, the order impugned dated
08.03.2019 came to be passed where, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the
accused by registering the criminal case. The said order is
called in question by the petitioners by filing these petitions.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure as required
under law and therefore, the impugned order requires to be
quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions in Dr.Ravikumar
Vs. Mrs.K.M.C. Vasantha and another1 wherein, the
coordinate Bench of this Court highlighted the procedure that is
to be adopted by the learned Magistrate in case of a complaint
filed under Section 200 and filing of the B-report by the police
on investigation and also the procedure when B-report is filed
by the Investigating Officer on a police complaint. The relevant
portion of the paragraph 5 reads 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
1
ILR 2018 KAR 1725
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
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
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
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
Police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,
once the magistrate takes cognizance
and starts inquiring into the matter
himself."
vi) XXX
(emphasis supplied)
7. He has also placed reliance on the decisions in
Veerapa and others Vs. Bhimareddappa2 where the
coordinate Bench of this Court held in paragraph 9 as under:
"9. From the above, the position that
emerges is this: Where initially the complainant
has not filed any complaint before the magistrate
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but, has approached
the police only and where the police after
investigation have filed the 'B' report, if the
complainant wants to protest, he is thereby
inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under
Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. on a complaint. If it
were to be so, the protest petition that he files
shall have to satisfy the requirements of a
complaint as defined in Section 2(d) Cr. P.C. and
that should contain facts that constitute offence,
for which, the learned Magistrate is taking
cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
Instead, if it is to be simply styed as a protest
petition without containing all those necessary
particulars that a normal complaint has to contain,
then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the
purpose of proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
That is what has happened in the present case,
and in my opinion, the contests of the protest
petition do not make the document concerned a
2
ILR 2002 KAR 1665
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d)
Cr.P.C."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the
decisions in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat
Lucknow and another3 where the Hon'ble Apex Court held in
paragraph 45 as under:
"45. If a protest petition fulfils the
requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may
treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal
with the same as required under Section 200 read
with Section 202 of the Code. In this case, in fact,
there is no list of witnesses as such in the protest
petition. The prayer in the protest petition is to set
aside the final report and to allow the application
against the final report. While we are not
suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive
of the question whether it amounts to a complaint
or is liable to be treated as a complaint, we would
think that essentially, the protest petition in this
case, is summing up of the objections of the
second respondent against the final report."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The position of law regarding procedure that is to be
followed by the learned Magistrate on filing of the B-report by
3
AIR 2019 SC 3482
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
the Investigating Officer is very much settled. In case of the
police complaint, if the Investigating Officer files a B-report
after investigation, the complainant is required to be notified,
upon which, he can file the protest petition, which shall be in
the form of the complaint as defined under section 2(d) of
Cr.PC. If such a protest petition is filed, learned Magistrate is
required to follow the procedure as contemplated under chapter
XV of Cr.PC, to record the sworn statement of the complainant
and the witness, if any, consider the materials that are placed
before the Court in support of the allegations made against the
accused. He is also required to consider the B-report submitted
by the Investigating Officer. If he is not satisfied with the B-
report, learned Magistrate is required to reject the same by
assigning reasons and he can proceed to accept the protest
petition filed in the form of complaint for the purpose of taking
cognizance if the materials that are placed on record are
sufficient to do so.
10. In the present case, even though respondent No.2
had filed the police complaint, the investigation was undertaken
and B-report came to be filed holding that there are no
materials to substantiate the allegations made by the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
complainant. Even though the protest petition is filed by the
complainant, the same is not in the form of the complaint as
defined under Section 2(d) and required to be filed under
Section 200 Cr.PC. But is only a memo filed by respondent No.2
stating that a complaint was field with DJ Halli police against
the accused; The investigation is undertaken and B-report is
filed; The B-report filed by the Investigating Officer does not
contain valid reasons for the conclusion arrived at; The
complainant is having very good case on merits and hence,
prayed for rejection of the B-report and permitting the
complainant to prove his case.
11. There are no other details or particulars, nor there is
list of witnesses or list of documents which are relied on by the
complainant. However, learned Magistrate proceeded to record
the sworn statement of respondent No.2 and passed the order
impugned taking cognizance of the offences.
12. Even in the impugned order, learned Magistrate
never refers to the B-report filed by the Investigating Officer,
except stating that in view of the materials that are placed by
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
the complainant, B-report submitted by the Investigating
Officer is required to be rejected.
13. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not
examined any witnesses on his behalf. It is stated that
subsequently, an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC was
filed seeking to summon various cheques which are said to be
forged by the accused and those cheques were already
produced before the Trial Court. Mere summoning and
production of the cheques may not be sufficient for the Trial
Court to frame charge against the accused.
14. On the basis of the police complaint, the Trial Court
cannot frame the charge without rejecting the B-report that is
filed by the Investigating Officer. No protest petition in the form
of the complaint required to be filed under Section 200 Cr.PC is
filed to enable the Trial Court to frame the charge. On the basis
of the sworn statement of the complainant, the Court cannot
frame the charge. Therefore, even though I find that there is
inordinate delay in petitioners approaching this Court seeking
to set aside the order taking cognizance, I do not find any basis
for the Trial Court to frame charge against the accused. There
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
is no list of witnesses, no list of documents that are relied on by
the complainant. Under such circumstances, the entire
procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is vitiated and it is
not in accordance with law. Therefore, I am compelled to set
aside the order dated 08.03.2019 taking cognizance of the
offence against the accused.
15. Learned Magistrate is required to permit respondent
No.2 to file the protest petition afresh in accordance with law. If
such a protest petition is filed, he can proceed to consider the
same in the light of the B-report and other materials that may
be produced by the complainant in accordance with law, by
keeping in mind the settled position of law highlighted above
and pass necessary orders. If on considering all these
materials, learned Magistrate finds it necessary to take
cognizance, he is at liberty to do so and register the criminal
case for the purpose of summoning the accused. The learned
Magistrate is required to follow the procedure meticulously
since the allegations made by the complainant against the
accused are of serious nature. Therefore, without going to the
merits of the allegations, I deem it appropriate to set aside the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005
CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022
HC-KAR
order taking cognizance only on the ground that there is
procedural lapse in passing the order dated 08.03.2019.
16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petitions are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 08.03.2019 passed in CC No.9564/2019 on the filed of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, directing registration of a criminal case by taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, after permitting respondent No.2 to file the protest petition afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of the discussions held above.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 HC-KAR
(iv) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to appear before the Trial Court on 03.03.2026.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6