- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7443 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MARIEM SIDDIQA W/O MOHAMMED AZHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. MR. MOHAMMED AZHAR S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. MRS. FARHEEN SIDDIQA D/O MOHAMMED AZHAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. MR. T. ABDUL MUIZZ S/O MOHAMMED AZHAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 176, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH R. P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. T. ABDUL MUEED S/O LATE T. ABDUL MUJEED, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 NO. 12, I CROSS, KECHAPPA ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE PULAKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKARVEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; V/O DATED 29.05.2026, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S. 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 14.12.2021 ONE PASSED BY IX ADDL. CMM, MAYO HALL IN PCR NO.60027/2017 WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE X ADDL. CJM, BENGALURU IN FORM OF C.C.NO.58004/2021 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.12.2021 passed in P.C.R.No.60027/2017 taking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent No.1 filed P.C.R.No.60027/2017 alleging that the petitioners had committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same was referred to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The K.G. Halli Police Station filed a 'B' report. A protest petition was filed by respondent No.1. The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.1 and marked Ex.P1 to P9 and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance in terms of impugned order. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance of the offences without rejecting the 'B' report as held by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR vs. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725. He contended that the Trial Court thereafter has recorded the evidence of respondent No.1 and has now listed the case for cross-examination of the respondent No.1. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order taking cognizance be set aside and the Magistrate be directed to first consider the report and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court after nearly five (5) years from the date of the order taking cognizance and hence, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners. He also contended that the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of the respondent No.2 and the case is now set for cross- examination and hence the petitioners have laid low for nearly five (5) years and hence no indulgence can be shown to them. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 5. While it is true, as held by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR vs. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER reported inILR 2018 KAR 1725 that the Trial Court should first apply its mind to the 'B' report filed and thereafter consider the protest petition and after recording the sworn statement of the parties, it should consider whether cognizance should be taken or not but in the instant case, the private complaint was filed in the year 2017 and cognizance was taken in the year 2021. Long after the proceedings have rolled to the stage of cross-examination of respondent No.2, the petitioners cannot turn the clock back to the stage of considering the 'B' report. If the petitioners have slept over their rights for over five (5) years, they cannot undo what they were lawfully bound to do within a reasonable time. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25311 CRL.P No. 7443 of 2026 in this petition. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10