IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8952/2016 BETWEEN:
MRS. CELINE SUMAN SEQUEIRA D/O MR. ANTONY LOBO & CARMIN LOBO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PANGALAYA, PARLADKA, PUTTUR TALUK-574 201, D.K.DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.606, SALAH ABDULLAH BUILDING, NEAR GIFT VILLAGE, IMMIGRATION ROAD, SHARIAH, U.A.E.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MR. VINCENT SEQUEIRA S/O MR. JACOB SEQUEIRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BALLYA HOUSE, MANI POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574 2011. WORKING AT P.O.NO. 262369 DUBAI, U.A.E.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.153/2010 AND C.C.NO.457/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., PUTTUR, D.K. PURSUANT THERETO WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Petitioner has sought to quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.153/2010 and CC.No.457/2015 pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur.
2. Though, large number of contentions are urged by the petitioner, on perusal of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate directing summons to the petitioner, it is noticed that the said order suffers from patent error and infirmities warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. The undisputed fact is that respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., seeking action against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 494 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted ‘B’ Summary Report. The order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate reveals that the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant. The complainant filed his protest petition. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement without rejecting ‘B’ Summary Report. Thereafter, on considering the averments made in the complaint and on going through the materials placed by the complainant, took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons to the petitioner. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate on the face of it is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1980) 2 SCC 91, which is followed by this Court in Dr.Ravikumar Vs. Mrs. K.M.C.Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725. In the above decision, procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate in the matter of accepting or rejecting ‘B’ report has been elaborately laid down as under:
“5. 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 Vs. State of West Bengal (second head note).
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.”
5. In the light of the above principles, the impugned order cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, D.K., in CC.No.457/2015 are hereby quashed.
All contentions urged by the petitioner are kept open.
The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider “B” Summary Report afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down in the above decisions.
Since the matter is of the year 2010, the complainant shall appear before the learned Magistrate without any further notice on the next date of hearing and the trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB