- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11839 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. B.S. UMMAR S/O LATE ABUBAKKER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.501, GREEN NIGHT APARTMENTS, FALNIR MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-575001. 2. B.S. FATHIMA D/O LATE ABUBAKKER AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KHATHIJA BAGH, KADRI TOLL G. KADRI, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-575003. 3. B.S. MOHIDDEN S/O LATE ABUBAKKER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KHATIJA BAGH, KADRI TOLL, G. KADRI, MANGALORE D K DISTRICT-575003. 4. B.S. YUSUF S/O LATE ABUBAKKER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KHATHIJA BAGH, KADRI TOLL G. KADRI, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-575003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE SOUTH P.S. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. JOHN FRANCIS D'SOUZA S/O LATE LEO A D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT LOVELY COTTAGE ST ANTONY GARDEN, MILAGREES, FALNIR, MANGALORE CITY D.K. DISTRICT-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.284/2017 (P.C.NO.40/2014) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.284/2017 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 2. The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in PCR No.40/2014 which was referred for investigation to Mangaluru South police station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The case in Crime No.179/2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC. The police after investigation filed 'B' report. The respondent No.2 filed the protest petition against the 'B' report. 3. (i) The case of the respondent No.2 was that one Mr. Louis Pinto was granted the land in Sy.Nos.78/4-P5, 78/6, 78/12-P1, 78/2, 161/1-P1 and 161/2 situate at Padavu village, Mangaluru, by the Land Tribunal, Mangaluru, in all measuring 3 acres 58 cents. He had two sons namely, Mr. Jerom Pinto and Mr. John Pinto. The said Mr. Louis Pinto died on 03.10.1982 leaving behind two sons to succeed to the above properties. Thereafter, Mr. John Pinto filed O.S.No.1692/1991 claiming his share in the property, which was decreed. An appeal was filed by Mr. Jerom Pinto in R.A.No.60/1995, which was dismissed. Later, Mr. Jerom Pinto died and entire estate vested in Mr. John Pinto. The respondent No.2 claimed that Mr. John Pinto during his lifetime had executed a Will dated 09.03.1999 in his favour and he later died on 21.08.2005. Thus, he claimed that he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 became the full and absolute owner of the property held by Mr. John Pinto. However, due to oversight, the name of Mr. Jerom Pinto and Mr. John Pinto appeared in RTC. Taking advantage of that, the petitioners/accused created a revenue and survey documents and placed the same before the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru. The respondent No.2 filed objections against registering the name of the accused in RTC. He claimed that the accused/petitioners had created a death certificate of Mr. Louis Pinto and submitted the same before the Assistant Commissioner. He also claimed that the accused persons had created a will dated 28.09.1983 in the name of the accused No.1 which allegedly was executed by Mr. Jerom Pinto. Therefore, it was contended that the accused Nos.1 to 7 along with accused No.8 had created death certificate of Mr. Louis Pinto and presented the same to be genuine before the concerned authority. (ii) The police after investigation filed a 'B' report and the respondent No.2 filed protest petition against the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and thereafter, rejected the 'B' report and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 then proceeded to take cognizance and issued summons in terms of the order dated 30.08.2017. (iii) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedure conducted by the learned Magistrate in first recording the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and thereafter, rejecting the 'B' report and then taking cognizance, is irregular in as much as it was incumbent upon the Court to take cognizance of the offence as provided under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and to proceed against the accused by issuance of process. He contends that if the Court is of the opinion that the 'B' report submitted by the police is to be rejected then, it should apply its mind and reject the 'B' report and thereafter, peruse the private complaint or the protest petition and verify whether the same makes out a cognizable offence and then take cognizance of those offences and provide opportunity to the complainant to give a sworn statement and to record the statement of witnesses as provided under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He submits that instead of doing so, the learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 Magistrate has without taking cognizance, recorded the statement of the respondent No.2 and thereafter, rejected the 'B' report and then taken cognizance. This, he submits, falls foul of the procedure contemplated under Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and another [ILR 2018 KAR 1725]. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the learned Magistrate after applying its mind has rightly taken cognizance and therefore, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 8. The fact that the 'B' report was filed by the police is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that a protest petition is filed by the respondent No.2 against the 'B' report. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar, referred supra, while defining the procedure that should be followed after a 'B' report is filed, held as follows:- "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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 Apex Court in a decision reported in between ABHINANDAN JHA vs DINESH MISHRA [AIR 1968 S.C. 117] (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in between KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [(1980) SCC 91] (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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 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.P.C. 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 any and also looking into the complaint/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 postpone 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 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 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." 9. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate did not comply with the above procedure but on the contrary, soon after the protest petition was filed, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and then proceeded to reject the 'B' report and thereafter, took cognizance of the offences mentioned above. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this procedure followed by the Trial Court is not in line with the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20594 CRL.P No. 11839 of 2022 and CJM, Mangaluru in C.C.No.284/2017, rejecting the 'B' report and taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC is set aside. The case is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to strictly consider the protest petition in accordance with the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and another [ILR 2018 KAR 1725]. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR