( 1 ) ALL these revisions are directed against the common order dt. 4-4-95 passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, accepting the final 'b' report and consequently dismissing the complaint.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in all these revision petitions, they are consolidated for the purpose of disposal.

( 3 ) A few facts necessary for the disposal of these proceedings are as hereunder : The petitioner herein filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate requesting him to take cognizance of the offences punishable under S. 120 (b), 419, 420, 468, 471, 114 r/w 34, IPC. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report u/s. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The Chickpete police who have investigated the matter, filed a 'b' report holding that the complaint is of civil nature. This 'b' report is challenged by the complainant by filing a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after considering the complaint allegations, took cognizance of the offences alleged and proceeded to record the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses and passed this impugned order by dismissing the complaint. The learned Magistrate during the course of his order has referred to the final report submitted by the police and also the complaint allegations and the sworn statement made by the complainant himself and passed an order under S. 203, Cr. P. C. The legality and correctness of the impugned order is challenged in these petitions.

( 4 ) SRI M. V. Devaraj, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner canvassed two import-ant points for my consideration. The first one is that the trial Judge has erred in relying upon the investigation material produced before the Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there is no ground to proceed against the accused persons. The second according to him is the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate are not based on the material placed by the complainant. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate has adopted a procedure which is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in ILR (1989) Kant 1486 : (1989 Cri LJ 963) (M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ). He has also relied on the decisions reported in 1976 SCC (Cri) 507 : (1976 Cri LJ 1533) (Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1978) 2 Kant LJ 329 : (1978 Cri LJ NOC 252) (Lalajibaishah v. Asalchand Hukmischand Porwal ).

( 5 ) SRI K. Prabhakar and Sri M. T. Nanaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 1607 : (1972 Cri LJ 1037) (Debendra Nath Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal) and (1984) 1 Kant LJ 33 : (1984 Cri LJ 1275) (Gurappa Basappa Dalal v. Modinsab Malik Sab Bagwan) and submitted that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a private complaint has necessarily to take into consideration the investigation made by the police and also the sworn statement made by the complainant himself before him. It is further submitted that the Magistrate at the stage of S. 203 of Cr. P. C. was to determine the correctness or the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated could be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reasonably be held to be true. It is submitted that if the material placed before the Court if read carefully, only makes out a dispute of civil nature and no offence punishable under Indian Penal Code or any other law is made out and hence the order of dismissal passed by the learned Magistrate is justifiable.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the point for consideration in this revision is whether the learned Magistrate is right in dismissing the complaint relying upon the sworn statement the complainant apart fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document