IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6638 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
DR P M NAGARAJA RAO S/O LATE P.V.MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.46, RAJA HAMSA, K.C.ROAD, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577301.
(BY SMT: SHEELA ADAVEESHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND SRI H C SHANKARA MURTHY S/O DR.H.D.CHANDRAPPAGOWDA, R/AT SRINIVASA NILAYA, MACHINE COMPOUND SHIMOGA, OFFICE:IL-FS, INVEST SMART, BASAVASADANA, I FLOOR, NEHRU ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201.
ALSO AVAILABLE AT:
SRI H.C.SHANKARA MURTHY, S/O DR.H.D.CHANDRAPPAGOWDA, NEAR BUS STOP, KUPPALLI, ... PETITIONER THEERTHAHALLI. TQ. SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577432.
(BY SRI: HITESH KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ITS ORDER IN P.C.R.NO.170/2007 DATED 09.12.2011 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, BHADRAVATHI OF ACCEPTING THE B-REPORT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and Addl. JMFC, Bhadravathi in PCR No.170/2007, whereby the learned magistrate has accepted the ‘B’ summary report filed by the investigating officer.
3. Petitioner herein filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking action against the respondent for the alleged offences punishable under sections 420, 426 and 468 Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that he had invested Rs.23,74,356/- in stocks and shares with accused persons for the last 10 years, but accused persons did not furnish any accounts for the last two years regarding the share business carried on and did not pay any dividends since 2002-2003 and also did not repay the amount inspite of repeated requests.
4. Learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted ‘B’ summary report. A perusal of the report indicates that the Investigating Officer has not collected relevant evidence in connection with the dispute raised by the complainant. There is nothing in the report to suggest that the share accounts of the complainant or the accused have been verified or any attempt has been made to collect proof regarding the alleged share transaction, which on the face of it, go to show that without conducting any investigation in the matter, the investigating officer has filed the ‘B’ summary report before the court. The learned magistrate without applying his mind to the said report has blindly accepted the ‘B’ summary report on the specious reasoning that the dispute raised by the complainant is civil in nature. On perusal of the complaint, I find that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie constitute ingredients of the offences under sections 420, 426 and 468 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate accepting ‘B’ summary report cannot be sustained.
5. For the reasons stated above, ‘B’ summary report having been submitted by the Investigating Officer without conducting proper investigation, the said report is liable to be rejected. Since the proceedings are arising out of a private complaint, learned magistrate is directed to proceed in the matter as laid in ‘KAMALAPATHI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL’ reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 which is followed by this Court in ‘DR. RAVI KUMAR v. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER’ reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.12.2011 is set-aside. Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter from the stage of rejecting the ‘B’ summary report.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-