- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3043 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2022 IN CRL.P NO. 3043/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RADHAKRISHNA A S/O RAJENDRAPPA DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SHOWN AS ASSOCIATE TRUSTEE OF DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR) PRESENTLY CHAIRMAN GOVERNING COUNCIL DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045 2. SRI. V.S KUBER S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS (SHOWN AS FOUNDER TRUSTEE, OF DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR) PRESENTLY CHAIRMAN THE ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU - 560 045 3. SRI. H.S. MAHADEV PRASAD S/O LATE SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 (SHOWN AS ASSOCIATE TRUSTEE OF DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU CITY - IN THE FIR) PRESENTLY MANAGING TRUSTEE ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI. SHIVALINGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S./O CHIKKALINGAIAH NO. 4/2, ASHIRWAD SUMANGALI SEVASHRAMA OPPOSITE, SHREE VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DATED 08.03.2019 C.C. NO. 9564/2019 DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE BY TAKING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 471 R/W SEC 34 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT AND NOT MAINTAINABLE. IN CRL.P NO. 3073/2022 BETWEEN: 1. DR. S. V. DIVAKAR S/O S.J. VENKATA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS (SHOWN AS PROFESSOR DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA 560045 IN FIR) NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL SINCE FROM: FEBRUARY 2015 DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045 2. B. RAMESH S/O LATE B. ASHWANTHANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (SHOWN AS T. RAMESH TYPIST IN DR. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, K.H. HALLI, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA 560 045 IN FIR) PRESENTLY WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, KADUGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 045 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI. SHIVALINGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S./O CHIKKALINGAIAH NO. 4/2, ASHIRWAD SUMANGALI SEVASHRAMA OPPOSITE, SHREE VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DATED 08.03.2019 C.C. NO. 9564/2019 DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE BY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 471 R/W SEC 34 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT AND NOT MAINTAINABLE. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL COMMON ORDER Petitioners in Crl.P.No.3043/2022 being accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.3073/2022 being accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 Nos.13 and 14 in CC No.9564/2019 pending on the file of the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the order dated 08.03.2019 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). 2. Heard Sri. Balagangadhar G.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 has filed the First Information with Devarajeevanahalli police against accused Nos.1 to 16 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The investigation was undertaken and the investigating officer has filed the B-report stating that even after collecting the documents and recording the statements of the witnesses, he could not find sufficient materials to constitute the offences as alleged by the complainant. 5. Pursuant to filing of B-report, respondent No.2/informant was notified. He appeared before the Trial Court and filed the protest petition. The sworn statement of respondent No.2 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate. On the basis of the same, the order impugned dated 08.03.2019 came to be passed where, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused by registering the criminal case. The said order is called in question by the petitioners by filing these petitions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure as required under law and therefore, the impugned order requires to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions in Dr.Ravikumar Vs. Mrs.K.M.C. Vasantha and another1 wherein, the coordinate Bench of this Court highlighted the procedure that is to be adopted by the learned Magistrate in case of a complaint filed under Section 200 and filing of the B-report by the police on investigation and also the procedure when B-report is filed by the Investigating Officer on a police complaint. The relevant portion of the paragraph 5 reads as under: "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 1 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 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 between ABHINANDAN JHA VS. DINESH MISHRA (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court in between KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 Police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself." vi) XXX (emphasis supplied) 7. He has also placed reliance on the decisions in Veerapa and others Vs. Bhimareddappa2 where the coordinate Bench of this Court held in paragraph 9 as under: "9. From the above, the position that emerges is this: Where initially the complainant has not filed any complaint before the magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the ‘B’ report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. on a complaint. If it were to be so, the protest petition that he files shall have to satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) Cr. P.C. and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Instead, if it is to be simply styed as a protest petition without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C. That is what has happened in the present case, and in my opinion, the contests of the protest petition do not make the document concerned a 2 ILR 2002 KAR 1665 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C." (emphasis supplied) 8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and another3 where the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph 45 as under: "45. If a protest petition fulfils the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. In this case, in fact, there is no list of witnesses as such in the protest petition. The prayer in the protest petition is to set aside the final report and to allow the application against the final report. While we are not suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or is liable to be treated as a complaint, we would think that essentially, the protest petition in this case, is summing up of the objections of the second respondent against the final report." (emphasis supplied) 9. The position of law regarding procedure that is to be followed by the learned Magistrate on filing of the B-report by 3 AIR 2019 SC 3482 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 the Investigating Officer is very much settled. In case of the police complaint, if the Investigating Officer files a B-report after investigation, the complainant is required to be notified, upon which, he can file the protest petition, which shall be in the form of the complaint as defined under section 2(d) of Cr.PC. If such a protest petition is filed, learned Magistrate is required to follow the procedure as contemplated under chapter XV of Cr.PC, to record the sworn statement of the complainant and the witness, if any, consider the materials that are placed before the Court in support of the allegations made against the accused. He is also required to consider the B-report submitted by the Investigating Officer. If he is not satisfied with the B- report, learned Magistrate is required to reject the same by assigning reasons and he can proceed to accept the protest petition filed in the form of complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance if the materials that are placed on record are sufficient to do so. 10. In the present case, even though respondent No.2 had filed the police complaint, the investigation was undertaken and B-report came to be filed holding that there are no materials to substantiate the allegations made by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 complainant. Even though the protest petition is filed by the complainant, the same is not in the form of the complaint as defined under Section 2(d) and required to be filed under Section 200 Cr.PC. But is only a memo filed by respondent No.2 stating that a complaint was field with DJ Halli police against the accused; The investigation is undertaken and B-report is filed; The B-report filed by the Investigating Officer does not contain valid reasons for the conclusion arrived at; The complainant is having very good case on merits and hence, prayed for rejection of the B-report and permitting the complainant to prove his case. 11. There are no other details or particulars, nor there is list of witnesses or list of documents which are relied on by the complainant. However, learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement of respondent No.2 and passed the order impugned taking cognizance of the offences. 12. Even in the impugned order, learned Magistrate never refers to the B-report filed by the Investigating Officer, except stating that in view of the materials that are placed by - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 the complainant, B-report submitted by the Investigating Officer is required to be rejected. 13. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not examined any witnesses on his behalf. It is stated that subsequently, an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC was filed seeking to summon various cheques which are said to be forged by the accused and those cheques were already produced before the Trial Court. Mere summoning and production of the cheques may not be sufficient for the Trial Court to frame charge against the accused. 14. On the basis of the police complaint, the Trial Court cannot frame the charge without rejecting the B-report that is filed by the Investigating Officer. No protest petition in the form of the complaint required to be filed under Section 200 Cr.PC is filed to enable the Trial Court to frame the charge. On the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant, the Court cannot frame the charge. Therefore, even though I find that there is inordinate delay in petitioners approaching this Court seeking to set aside the order taking cognizance, I do not find any basis for the Trial Court to frame charge against the accused. There - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 is no list of witnesses, no list of documents that are relied on by the complainant. Under such circumstances, the entire procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is vitiated and it is not in accordance with law. Therefore, I am compelled to set aside the order dated 08.03.2019 taking cognizance of the offence against the accused. 15. Learned Magistrate is required to permit respondent No.2 to file the protest petition afresh in accordance with law. If such a protest petition is filed, he can proceed to consider the same in the light of the B-report and other materials that may be produced by the complainant in accordance with law, by keeping in mind the settled position of law highlighted above and pass necessary orders. If on considering all these materials, learned Magistrate finds it necessary to take cognizance, he is at liberty to do so and register the criminal case for the purpose of summoning the accused. The learned Magistrate is required to follow the procedure meticulously since the allegations made by the complainant against the accused are of serious nature. Therefore, without going to the merits of the allegations, I deem it appropriate to set aside the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 order taking cognizance only on the ground that there is procedural lapse in passing the order dated 08.03.2019. 16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petitions are allowed. (ii) The order dated 08.03.2019 passed in CC No.9564/2019 on the filed of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, directing registration of a criminal case by taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, after permitting respondent No.2 to file the protest petition afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of the discussions held above. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6005 CRL.P No. 3043 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3073 of 2022 (iv) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to appear before the Trial Court on 03.03.2026. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6