- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.201059 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH B., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, YADAGIRI. R/AT: NO.41, 2ND STAGE, SIDDALINGESHWARA LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, MYSURU-570 031. 2. CHANNABASAPPA MEKALE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. MR. AMBARAYYA MEKELE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, SURAPUR, YADGIR DISTRICT. R/AT: PLOT NO.5, GAYATHRI NILAYA, NEAR DATTA MANDIR, DATTA NAGAR, NGO COLONY, C.J. COLONY, KALBURGI-585 102. 3. BASAIAH HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MR. NURUNDAYYA, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, SURAPUR, YADGIR DISTRICT. R/AT: PLOT NO.6, BASAVA BELAGU, KUMBARWADA ROAD, BANK COLONY, BIDAR-585 403. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDEEP VIJAYAKUMAR AND SRI. SATYANARAYAN S. CHALKE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODEKAL POLICE STATION, HUNASAGI CIRCLE AND TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURGI-585103. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHORAPUR IN CRIME NO.22/2018 OF KODEKAL POLICE STATION (C.C.NO.1806/2024) INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE 'M' AND SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHORAPUR IN CRIME NO.22/2018 OF KODEKAL POLICE STATION (C.C.NO.1806/2024) INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE 'N'. 4. S.G.PATIL (SAHEBGOWDA PATIL), AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. GURUNATHA GOUDA, FORMER JUNIOR ENGINEER/ SECTION OFFICER, PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, SURAPUR, YADGIR DISTRICT. R/AT: E/1/87, NEAR VIJAYALAKSHMI TEMPLE, SADAB, POST: AGNI-585 216, YADGIR DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 04.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 passed in C.C.No.1806/2024 (arising out of Crime No.22/2018 of Kodekal Police Station) by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Shorapur. 2. The facts leading to the present case disclose that one Mallanna, on 23.09.2014, lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging discrepancies in the execution of works undertaken under the Special Component Plan-5054 package, relating to the construction of a CC road and drain from Somanatha Temple to Valmiki Circle at Shorapur. At the relevant point of time, the petitioners were serving as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, and Junior - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 Engineer/Section Officer, respectively, in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. 3. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Lokayukta entrusted the matter to its Technical Wing for verification. After conducting a detailed inspection and enquiry, the Technical Wing submitted its report dated 17.04.2017, categorically concluding that no discrepancies or substandard execution of work were noticed and that the delay in completion of the project was attributable solely to delay in release of grants by the Government. 4. Despite the aforesaid technical report exonerating the petitioners, the Lokayukta, invoking powers under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, submitted a further report dated 20.01.2018 alleging certain procedural lapses and recommended initiation of criminal proceedings. Pursuant thereto, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.22/2018 for the offences - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and articles of charge were framed. The petitioners assailed the said proceedings before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 09.11.2021, quashed the departmental enquiry and the articles of charge, thereby granting a clean exoneration in favour of the petitioners. 6. Insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, upon completion of investigation in Crime No.22/2018, the Investigating Agency filed a ‘B’ report on 03.09.2019, concluding that no criminal offence was made out against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate thereafter issued notice to the complainant, who chose to file a protest petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 7. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate, without treating the protest petition as a private complaint and without adhering to the mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by order dated 04.11.2024, set aside the ‘B’ report and simultaneously took cognizance of the alleged offences, resulting in registration of C.C.No.1806/2024. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has advanced elaborate submissions and placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Mukhtar Zaidi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [AIR 2024 SC 3863); ii. Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C.Vasantha and Another [ILR 2018 KAR 1725]; iii. Dabul Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand [(2024)6 SCC 758]; iv. Veerappa and Others vs. Bhimareddapa [ILR 2002 KAR 1665]; v. M/s. JM Laboratories and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [(2025)1 SCR 1256]; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 vi. Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2024)10 SCC 690]; 8. Referring to the judgments relied upon, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that rejection of the ‘B’ report without treating the protest petition as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity. It is urged that such a course adopted by the learned Magistrate is contrary to settled principles of law and constitutes a clear case of procedural illegality, thereby warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposing the petition, would submit that the criminal proceedings are based on an independent set of allegations and material, and therefore, the exoneration of the petitioners in the departmental proceedings by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal would not ipso facto enure to their benefit in the criminal case. It is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 contended that no case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is made out. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader at length and has bestowed its anxious consideration to the material placed on record. This Court has also carefully examined the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Upon such consideration, the following points arise for determination: i. Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offences after rejecting the ‘B’ report, without treating the protest petition as a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? ii. Whether, upon submission of a ‘B’ report by the police, compliance with the procedure contemplated under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 mandatory before taking cognizance of the offences? iii. Whether the impugned order suffers from procedural illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 11. It is a settled proposition of law that upon submission of a ‘B’ report, the learned Magistrate has the following three options: i. To accept the ‘B’ report and close the proceedings; ii. To direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; or iii. To reject the ‘B’ report and take cognizance of the offences only if the protest petition satisfies the requirements of a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Veerappa v. State (supra). - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the protest memo filed by the Lokayukta for a closer examination. “PROTEST PETETION 1) The then Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta has lodged a complaint in file number Compt/Uplok/GLB/ 7261/2014/DRE-03 as per the orders of Hon'ble Upa- Lokayukta dated 20/01/2018, against Sri. M.R. Khandre, Executive Engineer, PRE Division, Yadagiri District and against 06 others. 2) It was alleged by the complainant that the aforementioned Sri. Mallanna, S/o Mallanna Hulikere, Kakkera village, Surpur Taluk, Yadagiri District, that the accused during the year 2011-12, under the special component to plan 5054 package the road work and drain work from Somanatha Temple to Valmiki Circle was taken up at a cost of Rs.01 crore and the execution of the said work is delayed and is of substandard quality and the accused have committed criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of accounts and fabrication of records in respect of the said works. 3) The matter was referred to technical and audit cell of Karnataka Lokayukta for investigation and Sri. Sudeendra.H.S, Assistant Executive Engineer No.02 submitted a report dated 17/04/17. Hon'ble Upa- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 Lokayukta on verification of said report and materials submitted with it by the said Engineer, has observed certain discrepancies which prima facie show that there has been a fabrication of records, falsification of records, accounts and misappropriation by the accused in connivance with contractor. 4) As per the instructions of Hon'ble Upa- Lokayukta, the Hon'ble Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta as aforementioned has lodged the first information report dated 30/01/2018 addressing a letter to the police Inspector, Kodekal Police Station, Shorapur Taluk, Yadgir District. As per the said complaint, CR number 22/18 was registered for the offences punishable under sections, 406, 408, 409, 420 and 468 of IPC. In the said CR number 22/18, the IO namely Pradeep Bisse, Police Sub Inspector of the said Police station submitted a B final report after concluding that the said accusations have not been established etc. 5) A careful reading of the entire B final report together with the materials submitted with it makes it clear that the entire investigation was based upon the allegations which were present in the complaint of the complainant aforementioned. It further appears that the IO has totally misguided himself in not considering the observations of Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta detailed out in a detailed letter written by Hon'ble Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta dated 30/01/2018, regarding allegations such as fabrication of records, falsification of accounts, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 misappropriation at the instance of accused in connivance with contractor. 6) The present protest petition is on the following grounds. GROUNDS 1) The IO has not at all investigated all the allegations present in the complaint dated 30/01/2018 lodged by Hon'ble Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta, but, has based the investigation only on the allegations made in the complaint of the said Mallanna S/o Mallanna Hulikere. 2) The IO has failed to appreciate the fact that the nature of allegations present in the said complaint of the complainant aforesaid and the nature of allegations present in the complaint of Hon'ble Registrar aforesaid dated 30/01/2018. 3) The IO has come to a conclusion on the allegations present in the complaint of Mallanna aforesaid but has not given any reasons in his report as to the allegations present in the complaint lodged by the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta dated 30/01/2018. 4) The IO failed to appreciate the fact that CR number 22/18 was registered on the basis of the first information/complaint of Hon'ble Registrar but not on the complaint lodged by the aforementioned Mallanna. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 5) The IO has given importance to the statements of witnesses than the documents involved in the case. The IO has not considered the nature of allegations, offences alleged. The investigation should have been based on the documents related to the works in question so as to ascertain whether there is any fabrication of records, falsification of accounts and misappropriation of funds and whether there was involvement of extraneous consideration. 6) The IO has based his findings on the irrelevant aspects such as, Sri. Mallanna Hulikere aforesaid has given his letter withdrawing his complaint and he has not furnished documents to support his case etc. 7) The IO in his report has stated that the allegation regarding delay and substandard works alleged or not proved etc. The above reasoning of the IO makes it clear that he has misguided himself while investigating the allegations present in the complaint aforementioned. 8) The IO misguided himself in believing that it was the duty of the Mallanna aforesaid to furnish the documents. But he has not considered the simple aspect that it was the duty of the IO to secure the documents and once done with collection of documents he should have concluded the investigation. It is submitted respectfully that the IO has not investigated the matter properly and being misguided - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 has submitted the B final report. Therefore the B final report for the aforementioned grounds collectively, does not hold good in law. It deserves to be contested by filing this protest petition before this Hon'ble Court. PRAYER It is humbly requested, in the interest of Justice, equity, this protest petition may kindly be accepted and cognizance of the offences aforementioned may kindly be taken and to take appropriate legal actions against the accused persons by exercising the powers of this court.” 13. Upon a careful and analytical perusal of the protest memo, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not answer the statutory description of a “complaint” as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protest memo, in the present case, is conspicuously bereft of foundational factual assertions. It neither narrates the specific acts attributed to the petitioners nor discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. More importantly, it does not set out the manner in which the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 408, 409, 420 or 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of such material particulars, the protest memo fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of a complaint. 14. It is trite law that a protest petition does not ipso facto assume the character of a complaint. When a protest petition is sought to be treated as a complaint, it must, at the very least, disclose specific facts constituting the alleged offences, clearly array the accused persons, and explicitly invite the learned Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukhtar Zaidi’s case (supra) has categorically held that once a ‘B’ report is filed, cognizance can be taken only by strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code. The recording of the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and, where necessary, an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., are mandatory safeguards and not empty or ritualistic formalities. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 15. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has mechanically proceeded as though a regular police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was placed before the Court. The learned Magistrate has erroneously invoked the procedure contemplated under Chapter XII of the Code, which is wholly impermissible once the Investigating Agency has filed a ‘B’ report. Such an approach not only runs contrary to the settled position of law but also strikes at the very root of procedural fairness embedded in criminal jurisprudence. 16. The Investigating Officer, after a full-fledged investigation, having filed a ‘B’ report and the petitioners having been exonerated both by the Technical Wing of the Lokayukta and by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, a crucial question arises as to whether a mere reproduction of the Lokayukta’s contentions in the form of a protest memo could, by itself, satisfy the definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Equally significant - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 is the question as to whether the learned Magistrate has applied his independent judicial mind to the contents of the ‘B’ report and examined whether any prima facie incriminating material existed to justify its rejection, supported by cogent and sustainable reasons. 17. On examining the impugned order, this Court finds that no reasons whatsoever are forthcoming. The learned Magistrate has neither adverted to the conclusions arrived at in the ‘B’ report nor analysed the material collected during investigation. The order does not reflect any consideration of the basic ingredients of the alleged offences relating to criminal breach of trust or forgery. Significantly, no documents or material evidence have been produced by the Investigating Agency to substantiate such serious allegations. The protest memo, at best, contains bald assertions questioning the correctness of the ‘B’ report rather than setting out factual allegations constituting the offences. Despite this, the learned Magistrate has mechanically proceeded to take cognizance - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 and issue process, which clearly demonstrates non- application of mind. 18. In the backdrop of the categorical exoneration of the petitioners by the Technical Wing of the Lokayukta as well as by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of such a defective protest petition would amount to nothing short of harassment and abuse of the process of law. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order taking cognizance suffers from grave procedural illegality, patent non-application of mind, and violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protest petition, not being a valid complaint in the eye of law, could not have formed the basis for taking cognizance of the alleged offences. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7919 WP No. 201059 of 2025 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following order: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The orders dated 04.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shorapur, in C.C.No.1806/2024 (arising out of Crime No.22/2018 of Kodekal Police Station) are hereby quashed. iii. Consequently, all further proceedings in C.C.No.1806/2024, pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shorapur, stand quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11 CT:SI