- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20159 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S BALAJI WAREHOUSING COMPANY PVT LTD (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT VENKUS SADAN, NO.610, 2ND CROSS, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI, OFF NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560094 REP BY ITS ADVISOR-LEGAL AND ADMIN, MR.A. DAYANAND. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HITESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ADITYA D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VV PURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. HARIPRASAD REDDY S/O MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.49, IST CROSS, B M SHREE NAGARA, MYSURU-570016. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 3. SANAJ JAN JAM @ SANATH JANJAM S/O VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KOTHURU VILLAGE, INDUKURUPETA MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-524004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. G. JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 31.05.2024 R3 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 07.09.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSORE CITY IN CRIME NO.0028/2019 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CHALLENGE THE B REPORT FILED BY THE R1 POLICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief: "Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other Writ to set aside the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore City in Crime No.0028/2019 and permit the Petitioner to challenge the 'B' Report filed by the Respondent No.1 police in the interest of justice." - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, and learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the material on record. The third respondent having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the third respondent - accused was an employee of the petitioner - Company during the period 2018-19 along with the second respondent, who is also a co-employee along with the third respondent. It is contended by the petitioner - Company that the third respondent had committed various offences, as a result of which, the petitioner authorized the second respondent - complainant to lodge a complaint against the third respondent - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC pursuant to which, the second respondent lodged a complaint dated 28.03.2019 against the third respondent - accused. Subsequently, the said complaint ended in a Final 'B' Report filed by the first respondent - Police authorities pursuant to which, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the second - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 respondent - complainant to make a statement regarding filing of the protest petition against the 'B' Report. Since the second respondent did not appear before the learned Magistrate despite issuance of notice of 'B' Report by the trial Court, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order accepting the 'B' Report. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 accepting the 'B' report and closing the case, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent, jointly submit that since the second respondent had subsequently resigned from the employment of the petitioner - Company, the second respondent did not pursue the 'B' Report further and could not file his objections to the 'B' Report thereby culminating in the impugned order. 5. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Dharmalingam Vs. State by Inspector of Police, CBCID (South), Coimbatore1 in order to contend that the petitioner being a Company in which the second respondent was 1 Crl.RC.No.967/2019 dated 13.11.2019. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 working and has been authorized by the petitioner - company to file a police complaint, the petitioner is a 'victim' within the meaning of Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the 'B' Report deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to file objections to the 'B' Report and contest the proceedings. It is also submitted that the said order passed by the Madras High Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).354/2020 dated 24.01.2020. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to extract to Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C which defines 'victim' as under. "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. A plain reading of the definition of the expression 'victim' under Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C would indicate that the same encompasses and includes the petitioner who is said to have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 suffered loss on account of the offences said to have been committed by the third respondent - accused. 7. It is also pertinent to note that as jointly submitted by the petitioner and the second respondent, the second respondent has subsequently resigned from his employment with the petitioner. 8. Under identical circumstances in R. Dharmalingam's case (supra), the Madras High Court has held as under: "26. The Petitioner being a victim is a person mandatorily entitled to notice as per law before acceptance of final report. The Judicial Magistrate had held that the protest petition filed on 29.10.2019 after cognizance being taken on 27.12.2018 is not maintainable and that allowing the protest petition would amount to setting aside or modifying its own order and that the protest petition has to be treated as a private complaint. The Judicial Magistrate had further held that without deciding the private complaint in Crl.MP.No.426 of 2019, summoning of additional accused, whose names do find a place in the First Information Report, is not proper and that after cognizance has been taken, the Court is empowered to add additional accused by way of Section 319 of Cr.PC which would come into operation in the course of any inquiry or trial of an offence and not at this stage. 27. In the light of the above decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the Judicial - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 Magistrate, in taking cognizance of the final report, dropping the names of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, without notice to the Petitioner is illegal and further, dismissing the protest petition, on the ground of delay and observing that it is not maintainable and would amount to reviewing its own order is improper. The further finding that the other additional accused could be brought in only at the stage of Section 319 of Cr.PC is also improper. As such, the order taking cognizance on 27.12.2018 and the impugned order, dismissing the protest petition, are vitiated and accordingly, are liable to be set aside. 28. When the Petitioner/victim being a person interested in the complaint is not put on notice of the final report filed in this case, this Court would view the matter placing itself at the stage when the final report was filed before the Magistrate. What follows would be that at such stage, the Petitioner has a right to file a protest petition. 29. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The order taking cognizance, dated, 27.12.2018 and the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, dismissing the protest petition filed by the Petitioner are set aside. The court below is directed to take up the protest petition in Crl.MP.No.337 of 2019 on its file, hear the Petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).354/2020 dated 24.01.2020 which is as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of directing the Magistrate to hear on the protest petition. We clarify that the concerned Magistrate will hear the petitioners also on protest petition and take decision on the point of issuing process or not. The observations made during the course of the impugned order will not stand in the way of the learned Magistrate while deciding protest petition. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly." 9. As stated supra, the allegations made against the third respondent - accused was in relation to offences said to have been committed by him qua the petitioner - Company, who is said to have suffered loss on account of the said offences committed by the third respondent thereby causing loss to the petitioner - Company, which would lead to the sole inference that the petitioner is to be construed as a "victim" within the meaning of Section 3(wa) of Cr.P.C. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 10. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgments of the Madras High Court, which is confirmed by the Apex Court supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the learned Magistrate by permitting the petitioner to file a protest petition to the 'B' Report and to proceed further in accordance with law. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 07.09.2021 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore City is quashed. c. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the 'B' Report in accordance with law. d. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its objections to the 'B' Report and contest the same in accordance with law. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2239 WP No. 20159 of 2023 e. Upon the petitioner filing its objections to the 'B' Report, the learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the third respondent - accused and provide a reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner and the third respondent and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB