- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103223 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERKALMATTI, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED HEAD MASTER, SHRI MARADI MALLESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUGANUR-587 120. 2. BHIMAPPA S/O JAMNAPPA LAMANI, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PRINCIPAL, SHRI MARADI MALLESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUGANUR-587 120. 3. YAMANURAPPA S/O WALAPPA RATHOD, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, SHRI MARADI MALLESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUGANUR-587 120. 4. PRAVEEN S/O BHIMAPPA NAYAKA, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY, SHRI MARADI MALLESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUGANUR-587 120. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KAMATAGI TOWN, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 120. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AMINGAD POLICE STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. CHANDRU S/O LACCHU RATHODA, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. SUSPENDED TEACHER, SHRI MARADI MALLESH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUGANUR, R/O. SECTOR NO.18, NAVANAGARA, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 IN CC NO.16/2024 AT ANNEXURE-D (ARISING OUT OF AMINGAD P.S. CR.NO.69/2020) PENDING BEFORE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(A), 120(B), 385, 386, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, AND FURTHER BE PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IMPUGNED ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in C.C.No.16/2024 arising out of Crime No.69/2020 registered by Amingad Police Station, Bagalkot District, for the offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 385, 386, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, which is pending on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hungund. 2. Heard the learned Counsel the parties. 3. FIR in the present case was registered against the petitioners in Crime No.69/2020 by Amingad Police Station, Bagalkot District, for the aforesaid offences based on the first information received from respondent no.2 on 19.06.2020. After completing investigation, the police had filed ‘B’ final report in the said case and acceptance of the same was opposed by respondent no.2 by filing a protest petition. The learned Magistrate vide the order impugned dated 31.04.2024 has rejected the ‘B’ final report filed in the present case and has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 taken cognizance of the alleged offences and issues summons to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 4. A coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravikumar Vs Mrs. K.M.C.Vasantha (Crl.P.No.536/2017 – disposed of on 27.11.2017), has laid down the procedure to be followed by the court before which a ‘B’ final report is filed. In paragraph 5 of the said order, it is observed as under: “5. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law. It is well recognized principle of law that, once the police submit ‘B’ Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the court has to examine the contents of ‘B’ Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the court has got some options to be followed, which are,- i) The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal (second head note.) ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the ‘B’ Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of ‘B’ Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process. iii) If the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’ Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 the contents of ‘B’ report, the court has to reject the ‘B’ Summary Report. iv) After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C. v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials collected by the police in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr.PC. are not so sufficient, however, there are sufficient materials which disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused, the court can still take cognizance of the offence/s under section 190 read with 200 Cr.p.c. on the basis of the original complaint or the protest petition as the case may be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses if - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 any and also looking into the complainant/Protest Petition and contents therein, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue of process he can still direct the investigation under section 202 of Cr.p.c., to be made by a Police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the above eventuality, care should be taken that, the case shall not be referred to the Police under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself. vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be. vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, on examination of the allegations made in the Protest Petition or in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 complaint, as the case may be and also after perusal of the sworn statement, then he has to record his opinion judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by exercising power u/s.204 of Cr.P.C. But, none of these procedures have been followed by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen from the records, the learned Magistrate even without rejecting the ‘B’ Summary report and without taking cognizance of the offences, but after going through the contents of the Protest Petition has 10 directly provided opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement. On the basis of the contents of the Protest Petition, and after relying upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting the horse behind the Cart.” 5. In the present case, after ‘B’ final report was filed by the police, acceptance of the same was opposed by respondent no.2 and the learned Magistrate without passing any orders on the ‘B’ final report filed, had recorded the sworn statement of respondent no.2, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 31.01.2024. The said procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with the procedure that is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11735 CRL.P No. 103223 of 2024 directed to be followed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar’s case supra. Therefore, on this short ground, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order: 6. Petition is allowed in part. The order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hungund, in C.C.No.16/2024 arising out of Crime No.69/2020 registered by Amingad Police Station, Bagalkot District, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations made by the coordinate bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar’s case supra. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration, and the same are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 70