- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.M.R., S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O MARASANDRA VILLAGE / KADATHANAMALE VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE …PETITIONER [BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR B G., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT [BY Smt. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP (PH)] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 PASSED ON B REPORT AND TO RESTORE THE COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 2ND ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA AND CONTINUE THE SAME ON MERITS. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 26.05.2025 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Doddaballapura, accepting 'B' report in Cr.no.133/2022, this revision petition is filed by petitioner/complainant. 2. Sri Ashok Kumar BG, learned counsel for petitioner (complainant) submitted that complainant MR Chandrashekar stated that accused M. Somashekar, Sandeep Kumar, Ramya, Kiran Veeranna goudar, Smt.Vijayalakshmi, KR Veerabhadraiah, Smt.Asha Shivakumar and Smt.Geetha Somashekar were his relatives. It was alleged his father Rudrappa aged 102 years was ill and bedridden since 4-5 months and was in care and custody of his brother - M Somashekar residing at house no.198, Sri Rajatadri, Ground floor, 6th Main, MIG A Sector, Yelahanka town. It was alleged that Rudrappa was admitted to hospitalized on 08.10.2022 and returned home after taking treatment for 4-5 days. While he was not in his sound mind and body and was not in a position - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 even to recognize complainant - his son. Further, Rudrappa owned 6 Acres of land in Sy.no.29 of Bisuvanahalli village. Since, complainant had expressed that he was residing in Marasandra village, he did not want share in properties and instead claimed 1 Acre land to be transferred in his name. Accordingly, family members had agreed and executed panchayat parikat to said effect. In respect of remaining 5 Acres, all family members including Rudrappa had executed registered GPA in favour of one R Mahadevagowda. An agreement of sale was also executed. That name of complainant was also mutated in RTCs. But, his brother - M Somashekar had without justification got filed RA no.69/2008 challenging mutation in favour of complainant. After dismissal of same, as well as appeal before Deputy Commissioner, even WP no.30633/2018 was also dismissed on 07.11.2022, with observation that entries would be subject to final outcome of civil suit in O.S.no.436/2017 on file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura. 3. Such being case, with intention to harass complainant, accused in collusion with Chandrashekar - FDA in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 Sub-registrar's office, had got executed a sale deed on 08.11.2022 even when Rudrappa was not in his sound body and mind. Said registration was by showing that between 4:00 to 4:30 pm his father Rudrappa had arrived in a vehicle and was outside Sub-registrar's office. Same was with intention to cheat complainant of his right over immovable property. It was further alleged illegality of said sale could be gauged from fact that transferee was none other than wife of Somashekar. 4. On said allegations, action was sought to be taken against accused for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Same was registered as Cr.no.133/2022 by Doddaballapur P.S. and forwarded to II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Doddaballapur. 5. However, without proper investigation, Police had filed 'B' - report on 28.03.2023. In view of same, notice was issued to complainant, who filed protest memo. Thereafter, on 15.11.2024, complainant deposed as CW1 and got marked Exs.C1 to 23 to substantiate his complaint. Matter was thereafter posted for enquiry and adjourned on several dates of hearing. But, on 14.07.2025, trial Court passed impugned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 order accepting B report by observing that complainant had not appeared and contested B report filed by police. On ground that same was contrary to record, learned counsel for petitioner sought for allowing revision petition. 6. On other hand, Smt.N Anitha Girish, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition and sought to justify impugned order. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and material on record. 8. This revision is by complainant challenging order passed by trial Court accepting B report. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27, held: "27. It is undoubtedly true that before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a final report under Section 173 and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter. While the investigating officer may rest content by producing the final report, which, according to him, is the culmination of his efforts, the duty of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily accepting the final report. It is incumbent upon him to go through the materials, and after hearing the complainant and considering the contents of the protest petition, finally decide the future course of action to be, whether to continue with the matter or to bring the curtains down." (emphasis supplied) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53610 CRL.RP No. 1591 of 2025 9. Though, procedure insofar as notifying complainant and permitting him to produce evidence in support of complaint is complied and complainant examined as CW.1 had got marked Exs.C1 to 23 and trial Court had rightly posted matter for enquiry, without concluding same, it has passed impugned order accepting B report. Only reason stated that complainant had not appeared and produced material would be ex-facie contrary to record. Hence, impugned order would call for interference. 10. Consequently, revision petition is allowed. Impugned Order dated 14.07.2025, passed by II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, in Cr.no.133/2022 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to trial Court for passing fresh orders on material produced by complainant in his examination dated 15.11.2024 before passing orders on 'B' report, in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55