- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17160 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G RAVIKUMAR SON OF G. VENKATESHALU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER SRI LAKSHMI BALAJI EXPORT AND RESIDING AT MONTERAL MANOR NO.303, 3RD FLOOR 103, SERPENTINE ROAD SHOPPING STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT 1ST FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA HEBBAL Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: B N JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R1; SRI: B S PRASAD, ADV FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 IN NO.CI 16 MIC 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR PETITIONER AND THE CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE DATED 15.05.2026 VIDE NO.CR.07/21/SIT/KLA ANNEXURE-A1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT; ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER 08.09.2025 IN NO.CI 16 MIC 2025 IN SO FAR PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED AND NOTICE ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 15.05.2026 IN NO.CR.07/21/SIT/KLA ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT; RE- ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM UNDERTAKING INVESTIGATION ON THE BASIS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 BEARING NO.CI 16 MIC 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DECLARING THAT THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.CI 16 MIC 2025 DATED 08.09.2025 IN SO FAR PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE- A IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ULTRA VIRES THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE 1ST RESPONDENT; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE TO ACCEPT THE 'B' REPORT DATED 29.12.2022 FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND ANNEXURE L; ISSUE SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AWARDING THE COST TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayer: "(a) Call for the records which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 in No.CI 16 MIC 2025 vide Annexure-A in so far petitioner and the consequently notice dated 15.05.2026 vide No.Cr.07/21/SIT/KLA vide Annexure-A1 issued by the 2nd respondent; (b) Issue an order, direction, writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 in No.CI 16 MIC 2025 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A and notice Annexure-A1 dated 15.05.2026 in No.Cr.07/21/SIT/KLA issued by the 2nd respondent; (c) Issue a writ, order or direction restraining the 2nd respondent from undertaking re-investigation on the basis of the Government Order dated 08.09.2025 bearing No.CI 16 MIC 2025 vide Annexure-A; (d) Issue a writ, order or directions declaring that the Government order No.CI 16 MIC 2025 dated 08.09.2025 in so far petitioner vide Annexure-A is without jurisdiction and ultra vires the powers conferred on the 1st respondent; (e) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus, directing the learned Special Judge to accept the 'B' report submitted before the Court on 29.12.2022 filed by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.7/2021 vide Annexure-D; and (f) Issue such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 of the case including awarding the cost to the petitioners in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Sri L M Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner gets embroiled in a Crime No.7 of 2021, on several allegations. The allegations are that, the Superintendent of 2nd respondent – Police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 21, 23 read with Section 4(1) and 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Mineral Development Regulation Act, 1957 inter alia alleging that 1,56,000 iron ore fines were transported without any permit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 3.2. The Investigating Officer conducts investigation and files a ‘B’ report before the concerned Court on 29.12.2022. On 24.02.2023, the informant is said to have accepted the ‘B’ report and submitted that he has no objection to accept the ‘B’ final report. However, the proceedings did not close or terminate before the concerned Court. On 08.09.2025, the Government of Karnataka issues a Government Order upon noticing the fact that in all cases where the investigation was undertaken for illegal transportation of iron ore, ‘B’ reports had been filed, as those ‘B’ reports were filed en-bloc in all the cases. In terms of the Government Order, it was directed that the Investigating Officers were required to represent before the concerned Court requesting the concerned Court not to accept the ‘B’ report and take the matter further. It is on the basis of the said Government Order, the Investigating Officer appears before the concerned Court and submits that the Government has re-checked the issue and is now wanting further investigation into the matter. He requests the concerned Court to order further investigation and submits that it was in the nature of a protest petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 3.3. Pursuant to the said order, the concerned Court on 23.01.2026, in view of the order of the State Government passes an order directing the registry to list the matter on record after receipt of the additional report by the Investigating Agency, which would mean that, the investigation is continued at the hands of the Investigating Agency pursuant to the order of the concerned Court. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri L M Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the concerned Court could not have solely, on the direction of the Government, which was put through the Investigating Officer to the concerned Court to continue the investigation. This is a procedure that is alien to law, is the submission of the learned counsel. 5. Contrariwise, Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I would submit that since ‘B’ report was filed in each and every case concerning alleged illegal transportation of iron ore, the Government takes a decision to redo all the investigations conducted, as the Investigating Officers had filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 a ‘B’ report in those cases en-bloc. Therefore, a Government order is passed to that effect and the Investigating Officer has appeared before the concerned Court and has requested the concerned Court to pass necessary orders seeking further investigation. 6. Sri B S Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, would toe the lines of the learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for respondent No.1 in seeking dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for consideration is - 'whether the concerned Court was well within its legal limits to accept the plea of the Investigating Officer and direct the case to be put up for additional report from the Investigating Agency?' - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 9. It is trite law that the concerned Court on receipt of the investigation report or a ‘B’ report from the hands of the Investigating Officer has few options. The options would be that: 9.1. He accepts the ‘B’ report on issuing notice to the complainant and hearing him and terminates the case. This closes the proceeding against any accused. 9.2. The second is not being satisfied with the ‘B’ report so filed, directs further investigation as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and; 9.3. If the final report is filed and again is not satisfied, it is always open to the concerned Court to direct further investigation from the hands of the same Investigating Agency as obtaining under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. 10. It would be these three options and no more. It is an admitted fact that post investigation, the ‘B’ report is filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court. On the ‘B’ report, the concerned Court passes the following order: "Form No.3 (Criminal) Order Sheet ORDER SHEET CCH-24 Ch.VIII R.I. (1) 18, 20 (2) Ch. VIII R.3 IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT BENGALURU CITY Cr. No.7/2021 Complainant V/s Accused State by SIT, Karnataka Partners, M/s Shri Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Lakshmi Balaji Exports and Imports, Hospet and others Sl.No of Order Date of Order or Proceedings Order or Proceeding Signature of Presiding Officer Signature of Parties or Pleaders when necessary 1 2 3 4 Dt: 29-12-2022 Received Final Report from Mr H. Nagabhushan, Superintendent of Police, SIT, Karnataka Lokayuktha through Mr Manjunatha T.H. Police Inspector, SIT, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru has submitted 'B' final report on 28.12.2022 in the above case for the reasons stated therein. Crime records in Cr.No.7/2021 pertaining to the above case are put up herewith for kind reference. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 Place it before the Hon'ble XXIII Addl City Civil Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru." Registrar. City Civil Court, Bengaluru" 11. The informant appears before the Court and submits as follows: "Dt: 24.02.2023 Informant Mr.Vivekananda Tulasigeri is present and submits no objection to the B final report. Call on 10.03.2023." The informant states that he has no objection to accept the ‘B’ report. This happens on 24.02.2023, 24 months pass by. 12. The Government then passes an order of re-verifying all the investigations that were already conducted and the ‘B’ report filed in the subject case and the like. This results in the concerned Court passing the following orders, about three years thereafter: "Dt: 22.12.2025 Case is called out. The SPP is present. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 For appearance and to hear on B report, by 23.01.2026. Dt:24.12.2025 Seen the office note and request letter of the I.O., of SIT, Lokayuktha. Permitted. Keep each copy of the request letter in each B report file. Dt: 23.01.2026 Case is called out. The Ld.SPP is present. Heard Ld.SPP on the requisition submitted by Sri.Manjunath M.N., P.I., SIT, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Urban. For reasons in the office proceedings and in view of the order of the State Government, the office is hereby directed to put up the record after receipt of additional report from the investigating agency." (Emphasis added) On 23.01.2026, the concerned Court allows to take on record an additional report from the investigation agency. This, the petitioner states is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. 13. The issue now would be whether the concerned Court could have passed the said order. What can happen on a ‘B’ report filed before the concerned Court need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The co-ordinate - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 Bench of this Court in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR v. MRS. K M C VASANTHA1 holds that the concerned Court, which is in receipt of a ‘B’ report has certain powers to do and it is only those powers that are available for it to do. The co-ordinate Bench has 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 Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal (second head note.) 1 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 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 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone 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 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.. But, none of these procedures have been followed by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen from the records, the learned Magistrate even without rejecting the ‘B’ Summary report and without taking cognizance of the offences, but after going through the contents of the Protest Petition has directly provided opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement. On the basis of the contents of the Protest Petition, and after relying upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting the horse behind the Cart." (Emphasis supplied) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 The co-ordinate Bench holds that when the ‘B’ report is received at the hands of the concerned Court, the three options that are narrated herein above are the only options that are available to the concerned Court. 14. If the order quoted supra of the concerned Court is considered on the bedrock of the elucidation of law passed by the co-ordinate Bench, it would undoubtedly tumble down for the reason that this is not the way the concerned Court should pass an order on the ‘B’ report. In the order it should be clearly indicated that, either he is not accepting the ‘B’ report and directing further investigation or that he is accepting the ‘B’ report and closing the proceedings. None of those things are done at the hands of the concerned Court. What is done is perfunctory and cryptic. 15. Therefore, the order that directs additional report filed by the Investigating Agency to be placed on record is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. One, it is not a product of any decision on further investigation. Two, it does not - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 emanate from a protest petition filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. Though in law, the concerned Court has the power to direct further investigation into the matter, but such power should not only be in law but should also be in ink by way of an order. 16. I fail to see any such decision at the hands of the concerned Court. Therefore, on this short ground the concerned Court has erred in not observing as to what would become of the ‘B’ report which has already been said by the informant that he has no objection to accept it and then had to direct further investigation into the matter. This fundamental flaw would lead to obliteration of the said order and allowing of the petition, albeit in part. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii) The order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the concerned Court is set aside. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32742 WP No. 17160 of 2026 iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court. The Investigating Officer now is permitted to file a protest petition, if he so desires. iv) On the protest petition being filed, it is open to the learned concerned Court to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, all of which would happen in an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. v) All other contentions except the one considered in the course of the order, shall remain open. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62