- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100022 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI PRASHANT S/O. SHATWAJI CHOUGULE, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOP BUSINESS, R/O. CTS NO.4912/IA, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH UDYAMBAG P.S. 2. SRI. SANDEEP @ AMOL S/O. MAHADEV CHOGULE, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. WORKSHOP BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR JAIN BASTI, CHANNAMA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 008, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 3. SRI. MAHADEV S/O. VENKATESH CHOGULE, AGE 77 YEARS, OCC. WORKSHOP BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.9, BEHIND STATE BANK COLONY, SUBHASCHANDRA NAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL. REVISION PETITION NO.216/2020 DATED 18.10.2021 AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE JMFC IV BELAGAVI DATED 06.08.2020 IN P.C. NO.02/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 441, 442, 444, 445, 446, 448, 452, 453, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, WITH A PRAYER TO REMAND BACK THE MATTER FOR ITS FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO ADDUCE HIS EVIDENCE AND OF HIS WITNESS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS COMPLAINT IN P.C. NO.2/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the complainant assailing the order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Court of JMFC IV, Belagavi in PC No.2 of 2018, which is confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.216 of 2020, by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order dated 18.10.2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent no.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdictional Magistrate had referred the private complaint to the CPI of Police. However, investigation in the present case has been conducted by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who has filed a B final report. He submits that after the B final report was filed, the petitioner who is the complainant before the trial Court had opposed the acceptance of the ‘B’ report. However, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence before the B - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 report was accepted by the trial Court and the case was closed. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that FIR has been registered in the present case for offences which are punishable with 7 years of imprisonment. Therefore, the Sub Inspector of Police has jurisdiction to conduct investigation. She submits that considering the material record, it is very clear that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Only by giving a criminal texture to this dispute, a false criminal case has been registered. She also submits that at the stage of passing the orders on the B final report filed, the complainant is not required to be given an opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the private complaint that was filed by the petitioner herein before the Jurisdictional Court of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 Magistrate was referred to the jurisdictional Police Station by the learned Magistrate in excise of his powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate has directed the jurisdictional CPI to investigate the case, the order sheet of the trial Court does not clearly reflect the same. In addition to the same, Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that any officer in charge of police station may without the order of Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area, within the limits of such station, would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XXX of Cr.P.C. Section 156(3) provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned in Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. Section 156 provides that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 investigate. The Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can direct investigation by the officer in charge of the jurisdictional police station and he cannot direct a specific officer to hold the investigation. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who has conducted investigation in the case, had no jurisdiction to investigate the case. The Karnataka Police Manual Provides that every B final report which is prepared by the Investigation Officer is required to be placed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police and only after obtaining approval of the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Investigation Officer can present the same to the Court through the Public Prosecutor, after his approval. 7. The other contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was not provided with an opportunity to lead evidence before the B final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate, in spite of he opposing acceptance of the B final report, by filing a petition also does not merit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 consideration in view of the law laid down by the Co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar Vs.Mrs.K.M.C.Vasantha in Crl.P.No.536 of 2017, disposed off on 27.11.2017. In the said case, it has been held that on receipt of the B final report in a case which is opposed to by the complainant, the Court shall first pass an order on the B final report, either accepting or rejecting the same. Only after such an order is passed and in the event B final report is rejected, then the question of recording the sworn statement of the complainant and giving an opportunity to lead evidence arises. 8. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 668/2004 C/W 851/2004, while discussing the provision of section 36 of Cr.P.C has observed as follows; “16…..The legislative intendment of Section 36 of Cr.P.C. is that all the superior rank police officers above SHO including the Superintendent of Police should involve in supervising the investigations to ensure the integrity and quality. Unfortunately we find that as a matter of routine the superior rank police officers do not involve in supervising the investigations made by the SHO. It - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 is rarefy and only in sensational cases, the S.P and senior police officers take control of the investigation to guide the SHO. The non-use of the provisions of Section 36 Cr.P.C. by the S.P and other senior police officers has resulted in free and unfettered situation to the I.Os to conduct the investigation in a causal and caviler manner and also to dishonestly manipulate the final reports submitted Under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is very essential that the draw backs in current practices in the investigations have to be over come to bring about effective and quality investigations to bring the culprit to justice. In our view to achieve the above object, it should be made compulsory by circular instructions and by amending the police manual to make it mandatory that the final reports of all the cases triable by sessions, the Superintendent of Distinct shall verify and counter sign the final report before it is filed into the Court In respect of lesser heinous offences, all the final reports have to be verified and countersigned by the Add! S.P or the ACP Such corrective steps in the police investigation would hopefully bring about fairness and quality in the investigation and would obviate malpractice”. 9. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have concurrently held that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. After perusing the material on record, I see - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11788 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2022 no good ground to differ from the view taken by the Courts below. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38