IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3047 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Smt. Pushpa H. Poojary, W/o. Dr. K.H. Poojary, Aged about 57 years, Residing at Flat No.902, Green Heights Apartments, S.L. Mathaias Road, Falnir, Mangalore – 575 001. …Petitioner (By Sri. S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Mangalore East Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 18.03.2013 made in Crl.R.P.No.188/2009 by the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore and also the order dated 26.06.2009 made in P.C.No.11/2008 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Mangalore.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Crl.R.P.No.188/2009 and the order dated 26.06.2009 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Mangalore in P.C.No.11/2008.
2. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The said complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a ‘B’ summary report before the Court on 26.07.2008. The notice thereof was issued to the complainant. On behalf of the complainant an application under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 16.08.2008 and the same was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 25.10.2008 and thereafter on the request of the learned counsel for the complainant, the matter was adjourned to 31.12.2008. 26.02.2009, 25.05.2009 and 26.06.2009. On 26.06.2009 since there being no representation on behalf of the petitioner and objection to the ‘B’ report having not been filed till then, the learned Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ report. The Revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed as devoid of merits.
3. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate the reason for her continuous absence before the trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner/ complainant having not filed any protest petition there of no other option to the learned Magistrate than to accept the ‘B’ report. The question of considering the ‘B’ report and its content would arise only if the same is objected to by the Complainant. In the absence of any objection, the learned Magistrate was justified in accepting the ‘B’ report. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made in this petition.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV