- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10163 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA S/O LATE L.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, JOURNALIST AND SOCIAL WORKER R/AT NO.335, MAIN ROAD, BANDIPALYA, G.S ASHRAMA, MYSORE- 570 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBRAMANESHWARA RAO POLICE COMMISSIONER NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 025. 2. SHEKAR CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSORE- 570 025. 3. YALLALINGA KUNNUR DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSORE- 570 025. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 PRESENT - DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANINILAS PURAM POLICE STATION, VANIVILAS PURAM, MYSORE 570 025. 4. K.R MAHADEVA ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE- 570 025. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 26.10.2024 IN CRL.RP.NO.9/2022 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is by the complainant who claims to be a news reporter and a social worker, who is aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2025 in Crl.R.P.No.9/2022 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. The Facts relating to the case are as under: The complainant herein filed a private complaint against one B. Manjunath, alleging that he had obtained - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 public employment by producing a false caste certificate. According to the complainant, though Manjunath actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he had misrepresented himself as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, and on the strength of such false representation, secured appointment in KARP Mounted, Mysore, which is a Government establishment. Acting upon the said complaint, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., referred the matter for investigation. 3. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent – the Investigating Officer, after conducting a preliminary probe, submitted a ‘B’ report before the learned Magistrate. In the said report, the Investigating Officer categorically stated that he had no jurisdiction or authority to examine the veracity or correctness of the caste certificate produced by Manjunath. In essence, the stand of the Investigating Officer was that the question as to whether the caste certificate is genuine or false falls within the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 domain of the competent caste verification authority and does not lie within the purview of police investigation. 4. It is, however, quite disturbing to note that upon receipt of the said ‘B’ report, instead of availing the remedy of filing a protest petition before the Magistrate, the present complainant chose to file yet another private complaint, this time directed against the very police officials themselves, invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this fresh complaint, he alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 166-A of IPC, contending that the Investigating Officer had deliberately disobeyed the directions of the Magistrate while dealing with the earlier reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Entertaining this complaint, the learned Magistrate once again referred the matter for investigation. 5. Aggrieved by such reference order, the second respondent/Investigating Officer approached the revisional court by filing Crl.R.P.No.9/2021 before the learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 District Judge. The revisional court, after duly notifying the parties and affording them an opportunity of hearing, proceeded to allow the revision petition. By its detailed order, the revisional court set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 14.09.2018, 20.12.2021, and 20.01.2022. Consequently, the very private complaint lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the police officials also came to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that the second respondent/Investigating Officer was not justified in approaching the revisional court by invoking Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. Placing strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2011 Crl.L.J. 2278, it is urged that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory in nature and therefore not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. On this premise, it is contended that the revisional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition and setting aside the order of reference. 7. Though this Court finds some force in the submission of the petitioner’s counsel on the legal proposition as canvassed, a deeper scrutiny of the factual backdrop of the present case reveals a rather disturbing feature. The petitioner, who claims to be a social worker and a journalist, has undertaken to question the appointment of the said Manjunath in a government service, alleging that his entry into service was by producing a false caste certificate. The core issue raised in the original complaint was whether the caste certificate relied upon by Manjunath was genuine or fabricated. The Investigating Officer, having no authority in law to adjudicate upon the validity of caste certificates, rightly submitted a ‘B’ report indicating his lack of jurisdiction. 8. Significantly, the complainant did not choose to challenge the said ‘B’ report in the manner known to law, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 namely by filing a protest memo before the Magistrate. Instead, adopting a circuitous route, the complainant initiated fresh proceedings by lodging a second private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., not against the original accused, but against the police officer himself, alleging commission of an offence under Section 166-A IPC. Such a course of action, in the opinion of this Court, not only reflects a misconceived and vindictive approach, but also amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. 9. By giving a complete goby to the earlier private complaint, in which the Investigating Officer had already filed a ‘B’ report, the complainant appears to have devised a vindictive method of dragging the police officials into criminal proceedings. This Court is therefore constrained to observe that the complainant has misused the criminal justice system by filing successive private complaints instead of pursuing appropriate remedies in law against the ‘B’ report. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37225 CRL.P No. 10163 of 2025 10. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, who in the first instance had no locus standi to question the employment of Manjunath by way of a private complaint, could not have maintained a second private complaint against the police officer merely because a ‘B’ report was filed in the earlier proceedings. Viewed thus, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30