- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3248 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. AMITH CHADHA, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, L & T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF MR. HARBHAJAN LAL CHADHA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L & T HOUSE, N.M.MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 001, INDIA REGISTERED OFFICE AT L AND T HOUSE, N M MARG, BALLARD. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. RAVI KUMAR. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY V JOSHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MARTHESHA G.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 SON OF MR. SHANKARAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.70, 2ND MAIN ROAD, K R GARDEN, MURGESHPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 017. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY EAST CEN POLICE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R2; SRI.MARTHESHA G.S.,- R1/PARTY IN PERSON) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XLV ADDL.CJM, BANGALORE IN PCR NO.4705/2023 REJECTING THE B REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES P/U/S 201 AND 379 OF IPC R/W SECTION 43 AND 66 OF IT ACT 2000 (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "A. CALL FOR RECORDS in P.C.R. No.4705/2023 pending on the file of the Hon'ble XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore; B. QUASH the Impugned Order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore in P.C.R.No. 4705 of 2023 rejecting the B - Report filed by Respondent No. 2 and taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 201 and 379 of IPC read with Sections 43 and 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (Annexure A); C. Consequently, quash the proceedings in P.C.R. No.4705/2023 pending on the file of the Hon'ble XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore (Annexure B); and D. PASS such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Sri. Dhananjay V. Joshi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondent No.1-in- person, Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 3. The petitioner is the sole accused, respondent No.1 is the complainant and respondent No.2 is the State. 4. A private complaint comes to be registered by respondent No.1 before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Upon the said complaint, the concerned Court refers the matter for investigation by the following order: "This is a complaint made by complainant against accused for offences punishable u/s 43, 66 of I.T. Act R/w Sec.201, 204, 378 and 379 of IPC. 2. It is the case of complainant that he is an employee of accused and during the course of employment there was a dispute and the complainant got transferred dispute related e-mails from his company e- mail ID Marthsha.GS@Itts.com to his personal Gmail ID martheshgs@gmail.com. Further it is the case of complainant that on 21-11-2022 he has filed suit against accused before Labour court and he went to take print outs of e-mails which were very much necessary to support his case. However, the said e-mails got deleted. It is the case of complainant that accused has hacked the personal Gmail ID and deleted the said important E-mails. Further it is case of the complainant that the complainant had lodged complaint before Shivajinagar PS CEN on 28- 11-2022 at around 5 p.m. However, the police have not registered any FIR, thereby he has also made complaint by RPAD and e-mail to jurisdictional police. Inspite of it they have not filed FIR. Therefore, the complainant has filed this private complaint against the accused. On perusal of materials available on record the complainant has made efforts to file complaint before jurisdictional police and the complainant has also filed affidavit in support of complaint as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case. Therefore, on perusal of complaint, e-mail conversations and other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 materials available on record satisfies to refer the case for investigation. Hence following is: ORDER Refer the matter to SHO, Shivajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit report. Await final report by 21/9." 5. The result of reference of the matter for investigation becomes a crime in Crime No.897/2023. 6. The police after investigation file a 'B' report. The complainant files the protest petition. On the protest petition, the concerned Court rejects the 'B' report and takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons. The order rejecting the 'B' report reads as follows: "In this case the defacto complainant has filed the private complaint against the accused U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec.43 and 66 of I.T. Act and 201 to 204, 378 and 379 of the IPC. The said matter was referred to the Police Inspector East CEN Division. But the said IO has filed the B report in this case. Thereafter, notice was issued against the defacto complainant. Defacto complainant has filed protest petition to the B report. Perused the material available on record. It is the allegation of the complainant that the investigating agency has not properly conducted the investigation. He has stated that the document produced by the complainant is not properly examined by the IO. He has stated that he has made out grounds to take cognizance against the accused. He has further stated that the accused being the employer of the complainant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 has hacked the account of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the it in the Labour court. He has further stated that the accused has destroyed the evidence. Hence he has prayed to reject the B report filed in this case. In this case the accused has produced some email conversations and his employment details. The allegation made by the accused would attract the offences punishable U/Sec.43, 66 of I.T. Act and Sec. 201 and 379 of IPC. At this stage the complainant has made out grounds to take cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.43 and 66 of I.T. Act and Sec.201 and 379 of IPC. Hence the B report filed by the police is not sustainable. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The B report filed by the I.O. is hereby rejected. The cognizance is taken against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.43 and 66 of I.T. Act and Sec. 201 and 379 of IPC. For sworn statement. Call on 17.03.2025." 7. The issue is whether the rejection of the 'B' report and taking of cognizance is in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR V. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER1. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has held as follows: "2. The records disclose that Respondent No. 1-Smt. K.M.C. Vasantha, has lodged an FIR before Chikmagaluru Town Police Station, against the petitioner herein for the 1 ILR 2018 Kar 1725 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 506, 507 of IPC. The same has been registered in FIR No. 23/2014. The allegations made in the FIR are that, the accused/petitioner was sending filthy messages to the respondent to her phone number with the help of various phone numbers and he was also threatening her with dire consequences of killing her husband and to kidnap her and will not allow her to live happily with her husband. On these allegations the Police investigated the matter and submitted 8B9 Summary Report to the Court. The Court passed an order on 30.07.2015 rejecting the 8B9 Summary Report and registered a criminal case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 506 and 507 IPC. The order of issuance of summons has been called in question before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri P.P. Hedge, has strenuously contends that, the Trial Magistrate has not even considered the contents of 8B9 Summary Report and has not whispered anything about 8B9 Summary Report as to why the same has to be rejected. Secondly, he contends that the objection filed to 8B9 Summary Report does not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner which attract the provisions under Sections 506, 354 of IPC to take cognizance. Thirdly, the Learned Counsel contends that, the sworn statement given by the respondent and her husband also do not contain any specific allegation, which attract the above said provisions of Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate without looking into all these matters has issued summons to the accused, which is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it is noticed that, the Police have submitted 8B9 Summary Report before the Court. As could be seen from the order sheet of the Trial Court, there is no whisper in the order sheet regarding accepting or rejecting of the 8B9 report, but, simultaneously at the time of issuing summons, 8B9 Summary Report has been rejected. It is noticed that, earlier no order has been passed with reference to the 8B9 Summary Report before taking cognizance on the basis of the objections statement to the 8B9 Summary Report filed by the complainant. On the other hand, it is seen that immediately after filing of the protest petition, the Learned Magistrate has proceeded to provide an opportunity to the complainant to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 give her sworn statement before the Court and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter, proceeded to issue process against the accused by rejecting the 8B9 Summary Report. 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 8B9 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 8B9 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 Hon9 ble Apex Court in a decision reported in between Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 S.C. 117.] (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court in between Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal [(1980) 2 SCC 91.] (second head note.) ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 8B9 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 8B9 Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process. iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 8B9 Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 8B9 report, the court has to reject the 8B9 Summary Report. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 iv) After rejection of the 8B9 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 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 8B9 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 8B9 Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting the horse behind the Cart. 6. Of course, the contents of the Protest Petition before taking cognizance can only be used for a limited purpose of ascertaining whether the investigation done by the Police is proper and correct. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate has committed a serious error in not passing any orders on the 8B9 Summary Report before taking cognizance on the basis of the Protest Petition. 7. Issuance of summons to the accused will have a serious repercussion, i.e., calling upon a person to the Court is also a very serious act of the Court. Therefore, the procedure contemplated as noted above has to be very scrupulously and meticulously followed by the Court. The Magistrate has to explore all the options as noted above in accordance with law at right stages, which has not been done in this particular case. The Learned Magistrate has relied upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the sworn statement for the purpose of rejecting the 8B9 Summary Report, which is not proper and correct. He has to pass orders on the 8B9 Summary report before taking cognizance on the Protest Petition for the reasons already narrated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. 8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon many rulings as to how the contents of the Protest Petition - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 and the sworn statement of the complainant and statements of his witnesses have to be considered. There is no need to consider those rulings in view of the fact that the Learned Magistrate, has committed the above said serious procedural irregularities and defects which are incurable in nature, and on which ground itself the order is not sustainable. 9. For the above said reasons, I am of the opinion that the Learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned, without following the proper procedure. If the Learned Magistrate simply looks into Sections 200 to 204 of Cr. P.C. that itself is sufficient and the provisions themselves would guide the Magistrate as to how he has to act upon. The non application of judicious mind to the statutory provisions in this case led to the irregularities committed by the Learned Magistrate. Hence, the said order is liable to be set-aside. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The Petition is allowed. The order dated 30.7.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru in CC No. 620/2015 (Crime No. 23/2014 of Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station), is hereby set- aside. The entire matter stands restored on to the file of the Learned Magistrate with a direction to follow the procedure as narrated in the body of this order and only after looking into the provisions of Sections 200 and 204 of Cr. P.C. meticulously, the Learned Magistrate has to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law." 8. The Co-ordinate Bench has laid down postulates with regard to manner in which a 'B' report or protest petition should be treated. None of those traits are followed in the case at hand. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, none of those traits or postulates that are laid down or followed by the concerned Court while rejecting the 'B' report and taking of cognizance. It is bereft of reasons. In that light, the only - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 corollary would be the obliteration of taking of cognizance and remittance of matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders from the stage of protest petition and regulate is procedure thereafter. 9. In that light, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore in P.C.R.No.4705/2023 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass orders afresh on the protest petition bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order within an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20776 CRL.P No. 3248 of 2026 All other contentions qua merit of the matter shall remain open. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36