Karnataka High Court
Mr. U K Balachandar 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:
IN W.P.No.14960/2024"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. -5- NC: 2025:KHC:4081 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 IN W.P.No.14952/2024 "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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:4081 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:4081 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:4081 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:4081 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024
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 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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 WP No. 14960 of 2024 C/W WP No. 14952 of 2024 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