- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13288 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H P SUNIL S/O LATE SMT H M UMADEVI AND LATE SRI H C PARVATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.949, 21ST MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H M MALLAPPA S/O LATE SRI H M MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT ASHOKA ROAD, SHIVAMOGA-577201 2. SRI H M JAYADEVAPPA S/O LATE SRI H M MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.514, BASAVACHETANA, 100FT ROAD, RAVINDRA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201 Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 3. SRI H M CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O LATE SRI H M MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.50, IST MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, SHIVAMOGGA-577201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 PASSED BY THE 42nd ACMM BENGALURU IN PCR NO.4431/2024 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 PASSED BY THE 81st ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) IN CRL.RP.NO.328/2024 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question twin orders: one of the learned Magistrate rejecting private complaint in PCR No.4431/2024, the other by the Court of Session, affirming the said rejection in Criminal Revision Petition No.328/2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 2. Heard Sri. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner, a relative of the respondents, alleges foul play, cheating or abetment to commit offences. The petitioner thus registers a private complaint before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and seeks reference of the matter for investigation at the hands of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, while passing an order on whether the matter should be referred or otherwise rejects the plea of reference, and further proceeds to reject the complaint itself on the score that on a purely civil dispute involving a title or share of the property, the criminal law is sought to be set into motion. The said rejection of the complaint is tossed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court in terms of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 rejects the Criminal Revision Petition, affirming the aforesaid order. It is these two orders that have driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 4. Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when a clear case of conspiracy, cheating or forgery is projected in the private complaint, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction not to entertain the complaint and reject it at the threshold. The matter would require investigation in the least and the learned Magistrate ought to have referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYA v. RAJLAKSHMI CHAUDHURI reported in (2023) 14 SCC 1. 5. Per contra, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel, in defense of the orders so passed, would submit that the petitioner calls into question a particular partition deed of the year 2002 by setting the criminal law into motion. The petitioner, in the said partition deed, claims the share belonging to his mother, who died in the year 1984. Before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 itself came into force, the mother was no more. Therefore, there is no question of granting a share to the son. The learned senior counsel - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 submits that those are the matters that are pending before the competent Civil Court for adjudication. Therefore, the criminal law sought to be set into motion in the teeth of the pendency of O.S.No.3264/2022 is rightly rejected by the concerned Court. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts and the relationship between the parties are all a matter of record. The petitioner seeks to institute a suit in O.S.No.3264/2022 claiming one sixth of the share in respect of the suit schedule property, which is a particular site and several other suit schedule properties. The site is allotted to one H.M.Mallikarjunappa - grandfather of the petitioner in the year 1981, when the petitioner was 4 years old. Time passes by and the mother of the petitioner dies in the year 1984. Long after the death of the mother, a partition of the properties takes place on 08.04.2002. It transpires that long thereafter i.e., 22 years later, a suit is instituted by the petitioner seeking relief of partition from the hands of the concerned Court, where the present respondents are the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 defendants in the said suit. In the teeth of the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner seeks to set the criminal law into motion by filing a private complaint, on the same cause of action and same allegations, except amplifying and glorifying them by dressing it with a colour of crime. The petitioner files the subject private complaint before the learned Magistrate by invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and seeks a direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court not only rejects the said plea of reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., but also dismisses the private complaint itself. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: "…. …. …. 10. Points No.1 and 2: As both the points are interlinked, they are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Firstly, the question that is to be considered is that, whether this court can mechanically refer this case for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, it has become necessary for this court to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2022, decided on 07-01- 2022 between Suresh Kankra VS. State of UP and another, wherein, it is held that “The Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 observed that, it being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of”. 12. In another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252 OF 2022, between Babu Venkatesh and others VS. State of Karnataka and another, decided on 18-02-2022, wherein, it is held that, “In an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also 8 PCR.No.4431/2024 verify the veracity of the allegations. The Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that, applications under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons”. 13. Keeping in mind, the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decisions referred supra, I proceed to verify the allegations made in the complaint and also the documents produced by the Complainant in support of his allegations made against the Accused Persons. 14. Admittedly, a Civil Suit is pending before the Hon’ble 1st ACC & S.J, Bengaluru, in respect of the Site bearing No.172 which is the subject mater of this complaint, along with other immovable properties. The counsel for the Complainant has produced the copy of the Plaint and Order Sheet of O.S. No.3264/2022. Site No.172 is shown as Item No.1 in the Plaint Schedule. In the prayer columns of this complaint, it is stated that the Accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 109 (Punishment of abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), Section 120 (Concealing design to commit offence), Section 120A (Definition of criminal conspiracy), Section 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy), 9 PCR.No.4431/2024 Section 193 (Punishment for false evidence), Section 197 (Issuing or signing false certificate), Section 198 (Using as true a certificate known to be false), Section 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), Section 200 (Using as true such declaration knowing it to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 be false), Section 403 (Dishonest misappropriation of property), Section 404 (Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death), Section 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), Section 417 (Punishment for cheating), Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 423 (Dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration), Section 426 (Punishment for mischief), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc) and Section 506 (Punishment Criminal intimidation). 15. The allegation against the Accused Persons is that they along with their another brother, their father Sri.H.M. Mallikatjunappa and their mother Smt.Lingamma entered into a registered Partition Deed on 08-04-2002 and in the said Deed, the above referred Site is allotted to the Accused No.1 to 3. It is their allegation that both the Daughters were not made as parties to the 10 PCR.No.4431/2024 said Partition Deed and the same is fraudulent act. It is the further allegation that the Accused No.1 to 3 have conspired with each other in order to knock off the above referred Site and they have sworn an Indemnity Bond in favour of BDA stating that they are the only legal heirs of Late Sri.H.M.Mallikarjunappa and obtained a Sale Deed from the BDA on 26-11-2002 in respect of the above referred Site. It is alleged that this is done to cheat the Complainant and other Share Holders and they have also committed criminal breach of trust. Admittedly, a Civil Suit is pending adjudication in respect of the Site No.172 and some other properties. These Accused Persons are also party to the said Suit along with others. Admittedly, prior to executing an Indemnity Bond in favour of the BDA, there was a registered Partition Deed dated 08-04-2002 under which the Site No.172 was alloted to Accused No.1 to 3. Admittedly, the said Partition Deed dated 08-04-2002 (under which Site No.172 is alloted to Accused No.1 to 3) along with other Deeds are under challenge in O.S.No.3264/2022. Admittedly, the Sale Deed 26-11-2002 executed by the BDA in favour of the Accused No.1 to 3 after the Partition Deed dated 08-04-2002 is also under challenge in the very same Civil Suit. Further more from the documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Document shown 11 PCR.No.4431/2024 as Annexure – L which is the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 application filed by him before the RTI Authority, goes to show that he was aware of all the Deeds that were entered into between Late Sri.H.M.Mallikarjunappa and others way back in the Year - 2002 itself. But, this complaint is filed in the Month of March - 2024, when Lok Sabha Election is nearing. When, a Civil Suit is pending which is the competent Court to determine the nature of the property, the shares of the parties etc., this complaint filed against the Accused Persons appears to be filed out of vengeance and it is a sheer abuse of process of law. At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the averments made in the complaint and the documents produced before this court, no case is made out for referring this case for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., nor any case is made out to take cognizance of the alleged offences. This court mechanically cannot refer any cases under this provision without looking into the averments made in the complaint and also the documents produced along with the complaint. And, this court is guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred above. 16. Though, the Complainant has alleged and produced documents to show that the Site No.172 was allotted by the BDA to Sri. H.M. Mallikarjunappa who is said to be his grand-father, there 12 PCR.No.4431/2024 is nothing on record to show that the Accused have committed any crime as alleged by the Complainant. From the averments made in the complaint and the documents produced, it goes to show that this is purely a Civil Dispute involving the title, share etc., of the disputed land. This court being a Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to try Civil Cases. This complaint is filed only with a view to give a criminal complexion to the dispute which is purely Civil in nature. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this complaint is not maintainable. As such, based on the discussions made above, Points No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. 17. Points No.3: For the reasons assigned and the findings given on Points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 ORDER This Private Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed." This is called in question by the petitioner before the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.328/2024. The Revisional Court also rejects the petition by the following order: "…. …. …. 11. Point No.1:- Before adumbrating to the factual aspects of the case, the facts in narrow compass is that a private complaint came to be filed under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant alleging that accused No.1 to 3 who are children of Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa, had filed certain application before BDA requesting for transfer of site which was allotted to their father Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa during his life time. It has been submitted that the grandfather of the complainant by name Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa was MLA from Tarikere Consequently and as such he was allotted with site bearing No.172 situated at R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru totally measuring 501.69 Sq.Mtrs, vide allotment letter dt.27.11.1981. That apart, the lease cum sale agreement dt.12.02.1982 was executed by BDA and they had issued Possession Certificate dt.17.02.1981 to Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa. It is further narrated that Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had died on 5.6.1996 leaving behind his wife Smt.Lingamma and 2 daughters and 4 sons as his legal heirs. The complainant has also narrated that out of 4 sons, 3 sons have been arraigned as accused No.1 to 3 in the present private complaint. The complainant is son of one daughter Late Umadevi. It is his contention that the respondents herein who were arraigned as accused persons had entered into a registered partition deed between themselves and their mother Smt. Lingamma on 8.4.2002 and on the basis of the same, they had requested the BDA to execute a registered sale deed in their favour. At the time of execution of the sale deed necessary indemnity bond also came to be filed by them - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 before the BDA. It is submitted that though the complainant/ revision petitioner herein was having legitimate right over the same, the accused persons with an intention to cheat and defraud had filed application seeking for execution of sale deed in their favour. It is also been submitted that he had obtained necessary information under RTI Act and as such he had filed a complaint before the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru to take necessary action. However, as no action was initiated and left with no other alternative he had preferred the present complaint against the accused persons. However, the trial court without taking cognizance of the offence or referring the complaint under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation, had straight away dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 12. During the course of entire submissions, the main point which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is with respect to taking cognizance. For the sake of convenience, the provision under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., is hereby extracted which reads as follows: Section 200 – Examination of complainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate; Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses, 1. if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or 2. if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. 13. The learned counsel for revision petitioner has pointed out that a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present. However, in the instant case, the Magistrate had not examined the complainant or the witnesses on their behalf and has straight away dismissed the complaint holding that a civil litigation is being converted in to a criminal case. I have bestowed my anxious reading to the submission made by the learned counsel. No doubt the wordings which has been used under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., indicates of examining the complainant and his witnesses. However, as precursory to the said sentence, it is pertinent to note that the sentence commences with the words that ‘taking cognizance of an offence on complaint’. It is relevant to note that taking of cognizance is nowhere defined under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the act of taking cognizance is a sacrosanct act wherein the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint makes out a triable criminal offence. It is made clear that taking of cognizance is nothing but taking note of the offences which is alleged to have been committed. As such at the inception of the case, the Magistrate may look in to the averments made in the complaint to ascertain whether a cognizable offence has been made out. The complainant need not be confused of taking of cognizance of an offence with that of the dismissal of the complaint. Only when the Magistrate arrives at a conclusion that there are materials and ingredients to indicate the commission of a cognizable offence, then necessary cognizance of the same can be taken. In other words, when a private complaint is filed under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., the recourse which is available to the Magistrate is of two fold. Firstly, the Magistrate may apply his mind to look in to the materials which has been averred in the complaint and if the ingredients make out a cognizable offence, then he may proceed to take cognizance of the offence or in the alternative, the Magistrate may direct investigation the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 investigation agency / jurisdictional police to register case by acting under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., to investigate and to file a report. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that in both the circumstances, the Magistrate is bound to scrupulously follow the guidelines as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. 14. Now by looking in to the basic postulate of law, I have bestowed my anxious reading to the averments made in the complaint. In the complaint, it has been submitted that the site came to be allotted in the year 1981 by delivering possession certificate to Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa who was MLA from Tarikere Constituency at that point of time. It is also not in dispute that Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had died on 5.6.2006 leaving behind his wife Smt. Lingamma and 4 sons. Out of them, 3 sons have been arraigned as accused persons before the learned Magistrate. It is also been submitted that Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had 2 daughters and the complainant claims himself to be grandson born out of daughter late Umadevi. Further, it is narrated that as per the records the wife of Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa and 4 sons had entered into a registered partition deed on 8.4.2002 in which the site mentioned was allotted in favour of accused No.1 to 3 without making the daughters as parties to the partition deed. By pointing out the same, it is urged by the complainant that it was a fraudulent act on the part of the accused persons and also of their mother in suppressing true facts that late Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had left behind 2 daughters. It is relevant to note at this juncture, that the partition deed came in to be executed on 8.4.2002 wherein the 4 sons of Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had entered into partition along with their mother and the impugned site had fallen to the share of accused No.1 to 3 before the trial court. Prima facie, the aforesaid narration itself would indicate that a pure civil case is made out. That apart, the complainant himself has admitted that he had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.3264/2022 against the accused persons and others claiming 1/6th share with respect to the suit schedule properties which include the site in question also. It is also been submitted that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondents/ accused persons - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 is also subject to challenge in the said civil suit. As such, prima facie it would clearly indicate that a pure civil litigation is made out. 15. Now coming to the following of the procedural aspects, I have bestowed my anxious reading to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to ascertain whether recording of sworn statement is mandatory by the trial court prior to passing of any order. In this regard, I have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1422/2021 dt.22.7.2021 (Sri Satya Sai Central Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another). In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had an occasion to discuss about the rudimentary procedures which is being followed at the time of entertaining a private complaint. The relevant portion is extracted which reads as under: “45. Therefore, it becomes amply clear from the above decisions that the purpose of examination of the complainant after presentation of the complaint is only to gather materials in order to decide whether prima facie case exists or not for taking cognizance. Fortified by the above judgments, on further analysis of sections 200 to 203 Cr.P.C., it is possible to state that: Chapter XV of Cr.P.C., is about “Complaints to Magistrate” consisting of Sections 200 to 203. Section 204 is found in chapter XVI with the heading ‘Commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate’. These sections are sequentially arranged in two chapters with a definite purpose. That means when a complaint is lodged, the Magistrate has to first ascertain whether there exists materials to arrive at a conclusion that an offence has taken place so that presence of the accused can be secured before the court. This is possible on perusing the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses if any. Examination is not necessary in a circumstance specified in clauses (a) & (b) of the proviso to section 200 Cr.P.C. 49. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that even after an inquiry or investigation contemplated under Section 202, he does not find sufficient materials, he may dismiss the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 complaint. If the language of Section 203 is read, it becomes so clear that he can dismiss the complaint if he finds that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and the result of inquiry does not afford a ground for proceeding further to issue process. That means he can dismiss the complaint without taking cognizance. Given a conjoint reading to sections 200 to 203, it is possible to state that cognizance of an offence cannot be taken unless the procedure contemplated under Section 200 and if need be, Section 202 is followed. These two sections cannot be construed in such a way as to say that taking of cognizance should be followed by recording of sworn statement of the complainant and examination of witnesses. 50. This aspect can be examined from another angle also. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to refer a complaint for police investigation. Even to refer a complaint for investigation by the police, the Magistrate must be convinced from the contents of the complaint that an offence appears to have taken place and therefore it requires investigation. To arrive at this conclusion, he must apply his mind to contents of the complaint. This aspect has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., vs STATE OF GUJARAT (AIR 2015 SC 1742). Referring to the earlier judgment it is held: “20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa[5], it was observed : "11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation. " The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra).” (emphasis supplied). 55. Based on the above discussion, the cognizance taking procedure to be followed may be set out as follows :- (i) After presentation of the complaint, the Magistrate must read the complaint and if he finds on the face of it, commission of an offence or offences is not disclosed, he can reject or dismiss the complaint. But the Magistrate must be slow in rejecting the complaint just on reading it because if the complaint is not properly articulated, rejection of complaint may result in causing injustice to the complainant. It is also possible that intelligent drafting may give an impression that an offence has taken place, which may not be true sometimes. Therefore it is better to examine the complainant and the witnesses if necessary. (ii) If after reading the complaint and examining the witness (if they are present and their examination is necessary) under section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate arrives at conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further, he shall take cognizance of the offence and issue process to the accused. (iii) Even after following the procedure set out in section 200, if the Magistrate is not convinced about existence of sufficient materials to take cognizance, he may resort to hold an - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 inquiry himself or direct investigation as contemplated under section 202. (iv) If the Magistrate does not prima facie find materials as to constitution of any offence after examining the complainant and witnesses (if any), he can dismiss the complaint in accordance with section 203. (v) Resorting to procedure contemplated under section 202 is not always mandatory, it may be resorted to only in the circumstances stated in section 202. That means, cognizance may be taken or the complaint may be rejected depending upon the situation even after the stage of section 200. (vi) It is not necessary that a Magistrate must endorse ”cognizance taken” in the order sheet, but what is required is application of mind and it must be depicted in a brief order. Decision as to issuing process to the accused itself amounts to cognizance being taken. (vii) Whenever investigating police officer files ‘B’ report, and the complainant wants to contest the ‘B’ report, the Magistrate has to follow the same procedure set out above. 16. On careful appreciation of the guidelines laid down, it would clearly indicate that on presentation of the complaint the Magistrate may reject the complaint on reading the complaint, if an offence or offences is not disclosed. When the said ratio is applied to the case on hand, the main allegation which has been leveled is of filing false affidavit before the competent authorities for obtaining the sale deed executed in their favour. Admittedly, the averments in the complaint itself would disclose that accused No.1 to 3 who were the sons of late Sri H.M.Mallikarjunappa had entered into registered partition deed on 8.4.2002 between themselves and their mother along with another son. On the basis of the said registered partition deed, the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e., accused No.1 to 3 were making claim over the property of their father. If the complainant take up a contention that even his mother was entitled for the share over the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 property, the same is a case which is required to be considered in a civil litigation, since as per the provision of amendment to Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are also having equal share over the co-parcenery property. The said aspect is not the look out of a criminal case. In order to attract the provision of Section 197, 198, 199 of IPC a false certificate is required to be filed. However, when the respondents lay their claim on the basis of the registered partition deed dated 8.4.2002, the question of entertaining a dishonest intention or malafide intention to cheat and defraud the person cannot be made out and even if the parties claim that it was an intentional act to execute registered partition deed only between some co parcenary of the family leaving behind the daughters, again the same amounts to a pure civil litigation. That apart, the complainant is also requesting the court to invoke the provision of Sec.403, 404, 406 of IPC. Even for attracting the rigors of said provisions of law, necessary ingredients are required to be disclosed in the complaint. In this regard, the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in the case of M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s.NEPC India and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- 20. Section 403 deals with the offence of dishonest misappropriation of property. It provides that "whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property", shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or both. The basic requirement for attracting the section are : (i) the movable property in question should belong to a person other than the accused; (ii) the accused should wrongly appropriate or convert such property to his own use; and (iii) there should be dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Here again the basic requirement is that the subject matter of dishonest misappropriation or conversion should be someone else's movable property. When NEPC India owns/possesses the aircraft, it obviously - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 cannot 'misappropriate or convert to its own use' such aircraft or parts thereof. Therefore section 403 is also not attracted. Section 405 21. We will next consider whether the allegations in the complaint make out a case of criminal breach of trust under section 405 which is extracted below : "405. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 22. A careful reading of the section shows that a criminal breach of trust involves the following ingredients: (a) a person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; (b) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; (c) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust. The following are examples (which include the illustrations under section 405) where there is 'entrustment' : (i) An 'Executor' of a will, with reference to the estate of the deceased bequeathed to legatees. (ii) A 'Guardian' with reference to a property of a minor or person of unsound mind. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 (iii) A 'Trustee' holding a property in trust, with reference to the beneficiary. (iv) A 'Warehouse Keeper' with reference to the goods stored by a depositor. (v) A carrier with reference to goods entrusted for transport belonging to the consignor/consignee. (vi) A servant or agent with reference to the property of the master or principal. (vii) A pledgee with reference to the goods pledged by the owner/borrower. (viii) A debtor, with reference to a property held in trust on behalf of the creditor in whose favour he has executed a deed of pledge-cum- trust. (Under such a deed, the owner pledges his movable property, generally vehicle/machinery to the creditor, thereby delivering possession of the movable property to the creditor and the creditor in turn delivers back the pledged movable property to the debtor, to be held in trust and operated by the debtor). 36. In this case, the complaints clearly allege that the accused with fraudulent intention to cheat and defraud the IOC, had induced IOC to resume supply of aircraft fuel on cash and carry basis, by entering into a further agreement dated 20.9.1997 and undertaking to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.18 crores approximately within the time stipulated in the Hypothecation Agreements. The sum and substance of the said allegation read with other averments extracted above, is that NEPC India, having committed default in paying the sum of Rs.18 crores, entered into a fresh agreement dated 20.9.1997 agreeing to clear the outstanding as per a fresh schedule, with the dishonest and fraudulent intention of pre-empting and avoiding any action by IOC in terms of the hypothecation deeds to take possession of the aircrafts. Though the supplies after 20.9.1997 were on cash and carry basis, the fraudulent intention is alleged to emanate from the promise under the said agreement to make payment, thereby preventing immediate seizure (taking - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 possession) of the aircrafts by IOC. This allegation made in addition to the allegation relating to removal of engines, has been lost sight of by the High Court. All that is to be seen is whether the necessary allegations exist in the complaint to bring the case within section 415. We are clearly of the view that the allegations in the complaint constitute such an offence. We are not concerned with the proof of such allegations or ultimate outcome of trial at this stage.” 17. In the aforesaid judgment it has been succinctly explained what amounts to entrustment of property and also under what circumstances, requirements of cheating could be considered to have been committed. By looking in to the said aspects, it is crystal clear that the complaint does not prima facie disclose the commission of offences alleged. 18. The court has also considered the impugned order passed by the learned trial court though it has been vehemently argued that the findings rendered by the trial court is not correct since certain observations are made with respect to political vengeance, the court is of the opinion that irrespective of the said observation being made, or if such observations are ignored, even then the averments in the complaint does not indicate of attracting the rigors of a penal provision. Under the circumstances, there are no grounds for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge. As such, I proceed to answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 19. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.397 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned XLII ACMM, Bengaluru - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 on 19.4.2024 in PCR No.4431/2024 is hereby confirmed." (Emphasis added at each instance) The issue now would be whether the concerned Courts are justified in rejecting the private complaint, if the private complaint does not make out overwhelming criminality in a given case or if it is a civil case clothed in a cloak of crime. 8. It is trite that the learned Magistrate would exercise the power under Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. according to the given case at hand. Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. read as follows: "202. Postponement of issue of process.—(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,— (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. 203. Dismissal of complaint.—If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. 204. Issue of process.—(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be— (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87." (Emphasis supplied) Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. permits the concerned Court to either accept the complaint and refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or take the matter forward under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. to examine everything itself. Between the afore-quoted two provisions lies a provision i.e., Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, if the complaint does not make out any overwhelming criminality for setting the criminal law into motion. This is what is exercised by the concerned Court. The Revisional Court as observed hereinabove seeks to follow the order passed by the co- - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31627 CRL.P No. 13288 of 2024 ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.1422/2021 to affirm the dismissal of the complaint. 9. The law does not prevent the concerned Court to reject a complaint at its threshold. It is not that every complaint that is filed before the concerned Court would merit reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or proceedings to be taken under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. is a provision that the concerned Court is entitled to invoke, which is invoked in the case at hand and there is no warrant of interference with the orders rendered by both the Courts, which are rendered on cogent reasons. 10. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2