Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent. Perused the records.

2. The records disclose that Respondent No.1-Smt. K.M.C. Vasantha, has lodged an FIR before Chikmagaluru Town Police Station, against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 506, 507 of IPC. The same has been registered in FIR No.23/2014. The allegations made in the FIR are that, the accused/petitioner was sending filthy messages to the respondent to her phone number with the help of various phone numbers and he was also threatening her with dire consequences of killing her husband and to kidnap her and will not allow her to live happily with her husband. On these allegations the police investigated the matter and submitted ‘B’ Summary Report to the Court. The Court passed an order on 30.07.2015 rejecting the ‘B’ Summary Report and registered a criminal case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 506 and 507 IPC. The order of issuance of summons has been called in question before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.P. Hedge, has strenuously contends that, the trial Magistrate has not even considered the contents of ‘B’ Summary Report and has not whispered anything about ‘B’ Summary Report as to why the same has to be rejected. Secondly, he contends that the objection filed to ‘B’ Summary Report does not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner which attract the provisions under Sections 506, 354 of IPC to take cognizance. Thirdly, the learned counsel contends that, the sworn statement given by the respondent and her husband also do not contain any specific allegation, which attract the above said provisions of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the learned Magistrate without looking into all these matters has issued summons to the accused, which is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it is noticed that, the police have submitted ‘B’ Summary Report before the court. As could be seen from the order sheet of the trial Court, there is no whisper in the order sheet regarding accepting or rejecting of the ‘B’ report, but, simultaneously at the time of issuing summons, ‘B’ Summary Report has been rejected. It is noticed that, earlier no order has been passed with reference to the ‘B’ Summary Report before taking cognizance on the basis of the objections statement to the ‘B’ Summary Report filed by the complainant. On the other hand, it is seen that immediately after filing of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to provide an opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement before the court and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter, proceeded to issue process against the accused by rejecting the ‘B’ Summary Report.

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 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 b