- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34660 CRL.P No. 12054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12054 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMANA S. RAO W/O SUDAKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS GOKULA COMPOUND HIRGANA GRAMA-576117 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT. MALLIKA S. SHETTY W/O SADASHIVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SOUMYA HARDWARE NEAR BTK PETROL BUNK CROSS ROAD KUKKUNDUR GRAMA-576117 KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34660 CRL.P No. 12054 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA (ANNEXURE-G) IN CC NO.72/2017 ACCEPTING THE REPORT.B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.72/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala accepting the ‘B’ report. 2. The office has raised objection in regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court that the petitioner, in the instant case, is entitled to challenge the order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C on the ground that no reasons are assigned by the learned Magistrate while accepting the ‘B’ report, however, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34660 CRL.P No. 12054 of 2025 is not inclined to examine the correctness of the order impugned. 4. The petitioner needs to be relegated to avail remedy of revision. If revision is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of order copy, the time spent before this Court shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18