- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12075 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. M.B. RUDRAMUNI S/O LATE SRI.M. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO. 245,4TH MAIN VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT BILEKAHALLI POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 076. 2. SRI. M.B. RAJENDRA S/O LATE M. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO. 480, 5TH MAIN SUNDERRAM SHETTY NAGAR BILEKAHALLI POST BANNERUGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 500 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY HULIMAVU POLICE BANNERUGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 076. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR CCB, WOMEN PROTECTION FORCE BANGALORE TOWN 560 053. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. M/S WINDSOR GARDENSPRIVATE LIMITED NO.81, 36TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, INDIRANAGAR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 BANGALORE 560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M. SRINIVAS RAO REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR M.NAGA PAVANI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2 SRI. AJAY.J.NANDALIKE AND SRI. MANU.K, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2023 IN CR.NO.624/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU BY ACCEPTING THE B REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a) To call for the entire records in Crime No.624/2016 on the file of III ACMM at Bengaluru. b) To set aside the order dated 10.10.2023 in Crime No.624/2016 vide Annexure-A on the file of III ACMM at Bengaluru submitted by the Respondent on the file of III ACMM at Bengaluru. c) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant to the Petitioner, in the circumstances of the above case, in the ends of justice.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the complaint dated 29.09.2016 lodged by respondent No.3 - de-facto complainant against the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.1 - Police registered an FIR in Crime No.624/2016 on the file of the III Additional CMM, Bengaluru. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 conducted investigation, which culminated in a ‘B’ report dated 02.08.2021, which was challenged by respondent No.3 – de-facto complainant vide protest petition dated 15.11.2022, in pursuance of which, learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the ‘B’ report posting the matter for recording sworn statement, aggrieved by which the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits invited my attention to the ‘B’ report in order to point out that after a detailed enquiry/investigation, respondent No.2 submitted a detailed ‘B’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 report, which has been erroneously set aside by the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned laconic, cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking order, without any application of mind and without assigning valid or cogent reasons and as such, the same deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate having come to the conclusion that respondent No.3 - complainant had failed to co-operate with the investigation, came to the erroneous conclusion that the investigation was not conducted properly by passing the impugned order rejecting the ‘B’ report, which deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and submitted that so long as the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order merely rejecting the ‘B’ report and posting the matter for recording of sworn statement without directing either re-investigation in pursuance of the same or issuing process to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to have any locus standi to challenge the impugned order, muchless preferring the present petition before this Court. It is also submitted that the present petition challenging the impugned order merely rejecting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 the ‘B’ report and directing sworn statement of respondent No.3 be recorded, is premature and the same is liable to be rejected. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance upon the following judgments: i. Dr. Ravikumar V. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and another – ILR 2018 KAR 1725. ii. Bhagwant Singh V. Commissioner of Police and another – (1985) 2 SCC 537. iii. Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others – (1976) 3 SCC 736. iv. Shesh Nath Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – 1998 SCC OnLine All 991. v. Delhi Race Club (1940)Limited and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another – (2024) 10 SCC 690. vi. Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others – (2021) 9 SCC 35. vii. Rudramuni and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.57102/2016 dated 16.07.2021 7. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that not withstanding the fact that the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ report and proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant, the alleged recording of sworn - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 statement of respondent No.3-complainant may ultimately culminate in an order directing issuance of notice/summons to the petitioner, who would be prejudiced by the same and consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned order. It is also submitted that at any rate, assuming the learned Magistrate were to issue process after recording sworn statement of respondent No.3 – complainant, the impugned order rejecting ‘B’ report, if not open to challenge, at this stage would remain unchallenged and attain finality, thereby causing irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioners, who cannot be said to lack locus standi to file the present petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to extract the impugned order dated 10.10.2023, which reads as under: “The present case is registered for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 406, 471, 468, 419 and 420 of IPC based on the information given by the defacto complainant M.Srinivasa Rao in Crime No.624/2016 of Hulimavu PS. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 2. On careful perusal of the material available on record it appears that the complainant is a businessman running business in the name and style of Windsor Builders and Developers i.e., real estate business and construction of the building. The said complainant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of property bearing Sy.No.64 and new Sy.No.64/2 situated at Yelenahalli Village, Begur Hobli, measuring 14.08 guntas and Sy.No.48/2 new Sy.No.48/3 measuring 20 guntas with accused No.1 and 2. Thereafter the said complainant came to know that already the accused have executed an agreement of sale to other persons in respect of above properties civil suit in O.S.No.1001/2015 and 1002/2015 have been pending before the Hon'ble Court. He further alleged that after that the accused No.1 and 2 colluded with accused No.5 for their wrongful gain created cancellation of agreements by forging the signature of complainant and on 03.06.2016 they created registered sale agreement, to enter into the said sale deed on behalf of complainant as GPA holder by creating the GPA in favour of accused No.1. The accused No.4 supported to the other accused persons. Thereby the accused have committed the above offences. 3. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted 'B' report by contending that matter is civil in nature and no documents available to show that the accused have forged the signature of complainant. On the basis of charge sheet it reveals that original GPA said to have executed by complainant in favour of accused No.1 not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 secured to verify the signature of complainant with admitted signatures. Therefore, the IO submitted 'B' report. 4. After submitting 'B' report the complainant has submitted protest memo, wherein he contended that the IO not investigated the matter property and submitted false report. 5. On careful perusal of the materials available on record the IO had sent Xerox copy of GPA with admitted signatures to the scientific examination, but it was returned as the xerox copy containing disputed signatures of are bad line quality and are not fit/suitable for scientific examination. Hence, original GPA dated 26.08.2015 Is required. But the 10 failed to secure the original GPA alleged to have executed by complainant in favour of accused No.1. In this regard the IO issued notice to the complainant also. But complainant not answered to the notice and not disclosed whether the original GPA is in his possession or not. The 10 also made effort to search the original GPA by taking search warrant from the court and search the accused place. But in vain. On careful perusal of materials on record the IO not investigated the accused persons in respect of GPA and other allegations. Hence, it is necessary to give an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The B final report submitted by the PI of Hulimavu Police Station is hereby rejected. The case is posted for sworn statement.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 10. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that except stating that the Investigating Officer failed to secure the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by respondent No.3 in favour of accused No.1-petitioner No.1 and that the material on record shows that the Investigating Officer did not interrogate the accused persons, the various contents of the detailed ‘B’ report have not been adverted to, muchless considered or appreciated by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order rejecting the ‘B’ report. It is also relevant to state that though respondent No.3 filed a protest petition against the ‘B’ report, the various contentions urged in the ‘B’ report by respondent No.3 – complainant have also been not adverted to or considered by the learned Magistrate, who has proceeded to pass the impugned cryptic, non-speaking, laconic and unreasoned order and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration afresh of the protest petition of respondent No.3 in accordance with law. 11. In so far as the contention urged on behalf of respondent No.3 – complainant, as regards lack/want of locus - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 standi on the part of the petitioners to file the present petition is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the possibility of the impugned order would culminate into a subsequent order by the Trial Court issuing process/summons to the petitioners is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the impugned order, if erroneous or illegal otherwise would cause prejudice to the petitioners, if not challenged at this stage itself and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have locus standi to challenge an other wise an erroneous order and as such, the said contention cannot be accepted. 12. In so far as the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 as regards lack of locus standi and maintainability of the present petition are concerned, the same were rendered in the facts and circumstances of the said case and no ratio as regards non-maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as against an otherwise erroneous order rejecting ‘B’ report has been laid down in the said judgments and as such, no reliance can be placed on the same by learned counsel for respondent No.3. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15121 CRL.P No. 12075 of 2023 13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Crime No.624/2016 by the III ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the protest petition filed by respondent No.3, afresh, in accordance with law. iv. Learned Magistrate shall reconsider the protest petition filed by respondent No.3 afresh and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19