- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 355 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DASEGOWDA S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA THIMMEGOWDA @THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MARTIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE MYSURU CITY, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. RANGARAJU, S/O. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MARTHIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. 3. SIDDARAJU, S/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MARTHIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. 4. SHANKAR S/O. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MARTHIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 5. ARJUN S/O. JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MARTHIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT -570 008. 6. SATHISH S/O. LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.7/92, 7TH WARD, C.M.ROAD, K.R. NAGAR TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. 7. SHRIKANTH SUB-REGISTRAR, VIJAYANAGARA SUB- REGISTRAR OFFICE MYSURU -570 001. 8. LOKESH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FIRST DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT VIJAYANAGAR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2, R4 TO R8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU IN PCR 42/2023 IN ACCEPTING B-REPORT FILED BY VIJAYNAGAR POLICE, MYSURU AND REJECTING THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.10.2023 FILED BY COMPLAINANT HEREIN, b) TO RESTORE PCR 42/2023 FILED BY COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU ON THE FILE FOR DISPOSAL OF THE SAME ON MERITS OF THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 04.10.2024 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru, in PCR.no.42/2023, rejecting complaint by accepting 'B' report, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision petition was by complainant. It was submitted, on various allegations against respondents no.2 to 7, a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) for offences punishable under Sections 149, 406, 408, 409,420, 425 and 463 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) was filed before I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru. 3. After recording of sworn statement in private complaint, matter was referred for investigation under Section 156 (3) of CrPC. However on 20.06.2024, 'B' report was filed. On said 'B' report, notice was issued to complainant. Complainant appeared on 02.09.2024. However without providing opportunity to complainant to produce material, Trial Judge proceeded to hear on 'B' report and rejected complaint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 by accepting 'B' report. It was submitted, same was contrary to law laid down by this Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, by Nandi Giridhama Police Station, Chikkaballapur and Anr., reported in ILR 2022 KAR 3127 at para-55. On said grounds seeks for allowing petition. 4. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1 - State and Sri N. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed petition. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 6. This revision petition is against an order rejecting private complaint by accepting 'B' report. Insofar as procedure to be followed while rejecting private complaint, this Hon'ble Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust's case (supra), has laid down guidelines as follows: "55. Based on the above discussion, the cognizance taking procedure to be followed may be set out as follows:- (i) After presentation of the complaint, the Magistrate must read the complaint and if he finds on the face of it, commission of an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 offence or offences is not disclosed, he can reject or dismiss the complaint. But the Magistrate must be slow in rejecting the complaint just on reading it because if the complaint is not properly articulated, rejection of complaint may result in causing injustice to the complainant. It is also possible that intelligent drafting may give an impression that an offence has taken place, which may not be true sometimes. Therefore it is better to examine the complainant and the witnesses if necessary. (ii) If after reading the complaint and examining the witness (if they are present and their examination is necessary) under section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate arrives at conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further, he shall take cognizance of the offence and issue process to the accused. (iii) Even after following the procedure set out in Section 200, if the Magistrate is not convinced about existence of sufficient materials to take cognizance, he may resort to hold an inquiry himself or direct investigation as contemplated under Section 202. (iv) If the Magistrate does not prima facie find materials as to constitution of any offence after examining the complainant and witnesses (if any), he can dismiss the complaint in accordance with Section 203. (v) Resorting to procedure contemplated under Section 202 is not always mandatory, it may be resorted to only in the circumstances stated in section 202. That means, cognizance may be taken or the complaint may be rejected depending upon the situation even after the stage of Section 200. (vi) It is not necessary that a Magistrate must endorse "cognizance taken" in the order sheet, but what is required is application of mind and it must be depicted in a brief - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 order. Decision as to issuing process to the accused itself amounts to cognizance being taken. (vii) Whenever investigating police officer files 'B' report, and the complainant wants to contest the 'B' report, the Magistrate has to follow the same procedure set out above. 56. Now in the case on hand, it is true that the Learned Magistrate in the initial stage posted the case for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and then at a subsequent stage, he referred the matter to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. From the discussion made above, it cannot be said that because the Learned Magistrate decided to record the sworn statement, he had taken cognizance of the offences at the initial stage. There is nothing wrong in directing the matter for Police investigation on a subsequent date as the Magistrate had not taken cognizance till the date of referring the case to police for investigation. In this view the argument of Sri K.G.Raghavan and Sri Raghavendra Srivatsa cannot be accepted. Point No.(iv) is answered in negative". 7. In para-55(vii) above, it is clarified that even on filing of 'B' report, Magistrate has to follow procedure laid down above. This would indicate that even before accepting 'B' report, it would be incumbent on Magistrate to call upon complainant to produce material. Perusal of certified copy of entire order sheet of proceedings before trial Court (copy of which was made available for perusal) would indicate that after appearance of complainant without providing opportunity to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42841 CRL.RP No. 355 of 2025 produce material, matter was heard and complaint rejected by accepting 'B' report. Same would be infraction of law laid down by this Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust's case (supra). 8. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru, in PCR.no.42/2023 is set- aside. iii. Matter is remitted back to trial Court for proceeding with private complaint in compliance with procedure laid down in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust's case (supra) at para-55 above. iv. Trial Court is directed to issue notice to accused and proceed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30