The principle of natural justice requires giving the complainant a full opportunity to be heard before accepting the 'B' final report.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi in P.C.No.22/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - accused.

3. The gist of the complaint is that, a private complaint was registered by the petitioner- complainant. The Court referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation police filed 'B' final report. Thereafter notice is issued to the complainant. Before the service of the notice, accused advanced the said case and reported that the matter was settled and in that light the Court accepted the 'B' report and closed the matter. Challenging the same the complainant is before this Court.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, in the absence of the petitioner-complainant, without there being any signature of the petitioner, ought not to have accepted the 'B' final report and closed the complaint. It is his further submission that, the accused colluded with the advocate of the petitioner and he got advanced the case and without there being any signature of the complainant, the learned Magistrate recorded that the matter has been settled and as such, the fraud has been played on the Court by respondent No.2-accused. It is his further submission that the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has also played fraud and as such, a complaint has also been registered against the said counsel before the Karnataka State Bar Council. It is his further submission that the matter has not been amicably settled between the complainant and accused. Only with an intention to close a case a fraud has been played. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 - State by justifying the order submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the said order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the matter has been amicably settled and as such 'B' final report has been accepted. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- accused vehemently argued and submitted that the matter has been reported that it has been settled and on the basis of the report given by the counsel for the complainant, 'B' final report has been accepted and the matter has been closed. There are no good grounds to entertain the present petition. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

8. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order sheet made available, a private complaint came to be filed on 23.01.2018 and thereafter on 02.04.2018, the matter was referred under Section 156 of Cr.P.C to held an enquiry and file a final report. On 05.03.2018 'B' final report was filed and on the same day notice has also been issued to the complainant. The case was posted for return of service of summons to the complainant on 25.04.2018. But on 26.03.2018, the case is advanced by the PSI, Hosahalli Police Station and on that day the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned order it is specifically mentioned that, "the case is called out. Complainant counsel is present. Filed a memo stating the matter is settled out of Court and further the complainant accepted the final report." On the basis of the said submission, a final report has been accepted and the case is closed.

9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned counsel has not informed him about the advancement of th