- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:269 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101325 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ERNEST S/O. DAVID SAMUEL AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. NO.25, SHIVAGERI, BARAKOTRI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, SRI. M.L. VANTI AND SRI. V.S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATES) AND: MURGESH S/O. RAOSAHEB CHANNANNAVAR OCC. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH AND SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARKI, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN SUB- URBAN CRIME NO.72/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION. 167 AND 474 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent, a Police Sub-Inspector, in connection with Crime No.50/2012 for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was subsequently produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.10 12:40:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:269 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2020 2. The petitioner later filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the respondent had manipulated the station house diary. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Following the investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report stating that there was no substance in the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent. Aggrieved by the submission of the ‘B’ report, the petitioner filed a protest petition. 3. Despite being provided with sufficient opportunities to present submissions on the protest petition, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, having no other option, accepted the ‘B’ report without assigning specific reasons for doing so. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 5. The petitioner’s primary allegation against the respondent is that the station house diary was manipulated. It is contended that the web-hosted station house diary reflects the names of two accused persons, while the manual station house diary reflects the names of six accused persons. However, the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any legal injury or prejudice caused to him due to the alleged manipulation of the station house diary. 6. Furthermore, as the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with Crime No.50/2012, and his arrest was held to be legal, the alleged manipulation of the station house diary does not constitute a sustainable grievance. In the absence of any - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:269 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2020 substantiated legal injury caused to the petitioner, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64