- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 824 OF 2022 BETWEEN: B.H. ISMAIL S/O AHAMAD KUNNI AGE:55 YEARS BARAVALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI CIRCLE TQ: BELLUR, DIST: HASSAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABURAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.N TUNGABHADRAYYA S/O NANJAYYA AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, AREHALLI CIRCLE, TQ:BELUR, DIST:HASSAN-573 101 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AREHALLI P.S TQ:BELUR, DIST: HASSAN-573 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED DATED.14.03.2022 IN PCR NO. 87/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT BELUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND REMIT BACK FOR THE PROCEEDINGS FOR TRAIL. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in PCR No.87/2017 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Magistrate'), whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the 'B' Report filed by the Arehalli Police and thereby, dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that: The revision petitioner-complainant has filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against respondent No.1/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 419 and 420 of IPC. Subsequent to registration of the complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the case to the jurisdictional Police for enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Arehalli Police, after conducting the investigation, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 filed 'B' Report in the case. The said 'B' Report was objected by the complainant and the case was taken up for enquiry. In view of the enquiry, the complainant got himself examined as CW.1 and marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12. On perusal of the same, the learned Magistrate accepted the 'B' Report and dismissed the private compliant. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by the complainant. 4. I have heard Sri Sidharath Baburao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for respondent No.2. 5. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court grossly erred while accepting the 'B' report and dismissing the private complaint despite the complainant placing sufficient documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P12 besides examining himself as CW.1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant had lodged the complaint before the Arehalli Police on 01.05.2016 alleging that on 25.04.2016, when he was proceeding from his village i.e., Bakkaravalli towards Arehalli, he lost 10 cheque leaves having number from 847691 to 847770 pertaining to Canara Bank, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 Arehalli Branch. Further, the complainant also issued intimation to his bank on 30.04.2016 requesting not to make any payment from his account. As such, the complainant has clearly proved that the cheque in question was lost. Later, respondent No.1 filed private complaint against the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') by misusing one of the cheque for unlawful gain. In spite of that, without properly investigating, respondent No.2-police filed 'B' Report and the learned Magistrate accepted the same without appreciating the evidence of the complainant and other documents. Accordingly, she prays to allow the revision petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.2, by supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Court, would contend that the jurisdictional Police, after a detailed investigation and also recording the statements of 6 witnesses, filed the 'B' Report stating that in order to over come from the case filed by respondent No.1 under Section 138 of NI Act against this complainant, a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant stating that the cheque in question was lost and misused by respondent No.1. According to learned HCGP, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 the charge sheet filed by respondent No.2-Police clearly depicts that a detailed investigation has been conducted by the Police. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate rightly accepted the 'B' Report and dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the revision petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties so also having given my anxious consideration on the documents made available before me including the order passed by the trial Court, the only point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 by accepting the 'B' report and thereby, dismissing the private complaint filed by the complainant?" 8. It could be gathered from the records that the signature on the cheque in question was not disputed by the complainant. Admittedly, respondent No.1 already filed a private complaint against the complainant under Section 138 of N.I.Act against this complainant for recovery of legally enforceable debt of Rs.2 lakh. It is the contention of the complainant that the cheque in question i.e., cheque bearing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 No.847693 was lost on 25.04.2016 and the same was misused by respondent No.1 for unlawful gain. The complainant has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.12.2017 as per PCR No.87/2017. The learned Magistrate has referred the said private complaint to the jurisdictional Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.5/2018 dated 07.01.2018 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 419 and 420 of IPC. Subsequently, the said Police investigated the case in detail and filed the 'B' Report. 9. I have carefully perused the charge sheet/'B' Report filed by the Police, which depicts that the respondent-Police enquired two eyewitnesses i.e., one Siddaraju and one Subrahmaya and four other witnesses. Based on their statements, the investigation officer came to the conclusion that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant in order to defeat the claim of respondent No.1 in 138 of NI Act proceedings. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the entire material on record and accepted the 'B' report and dismissed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14988 CRL.RP No. 824 of 2022 the complaint. I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10