Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Ms. Ambujakshi, W/o. Late Konda Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Attibele Police Station, Rep By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019
Decided On : 05-08-2026
For the Petitioner:Sri K. Diwakara, Sr. Advocate for Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Mr Patil, HCGP, Sri HP Leeladhar, Advocate.
A Magistrate's order for taking cognizance and issuing summons does not need to be a detailed reasoned order provided there is prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds to proceed. Additionally, legal representatives are permitted to continue criminal prosecution upon the death of the original complainant.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141, 143, 441, 442, 448, 503, 506, 114 and 149 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 190(1)(b), 204, 256 and 302 - Cognizance and issuance of process - Order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons does not require explicit or detailed reasons - It is sufficient if the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the materials on record, such as the case diary, police report, or sworn statements, to determine if a prima facie case is made out - The court's role at this stage is not to evaluate the merits of evidence or consider the defense version, but to verify if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. (Paras 16, 17)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Procedure on 'B' Report - While the court should ideally pass an express order on a 'B' report, the subsequent taking of cognizance based on other materials implies a rejection of the said report and is not fatal to the proceedings. (Para 19)
(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Death of complainant - Legal representatives of a deceased complainant are permitted to continue criminal prosecution. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged proceedings and a cognizance order for offences including unlawful assembly, house trespass, and criminal intimidation. Following a police investigation, a 'B' report was filed. The Magistrate then recorded sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses. During these proceedings, the original complainant passed away, and her son applied to continue the prosecution as a legal representative. The Magistrate subsequently took cognizance and issued summons. The petitioners sought to quash these proceedings, arguing that the proper procedure for dealing with 'B' reports was not followed, the dispute was civil in nature, and there was an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had considered the complaint, the 'B' report, and sworn statements, which established a prima facie case. The order taking cognizance, though not detailed, demonstrated a proper application of judicial mind. The application of the legal representative to continue the case was valid, and the delay in filing the complaint was reasonably explained.
Issues: Whether the failure to pass a specific reasoned order on the 'B' report, the death of the original complainant, or the nature of the dispute warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a summoning order does not need to be a reasoned order provided the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. The rejection of a 'B' report can be implied from the act of taking cognizance. Furthermore, legal heirs are legally entitled to continue prosecution after the death of the original complainant.
Result: Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging entire proceedings in CC no.1777/2018 on file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal in Crime no.205/2006 by Attibele Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as order dated 14.11.2018 taking cognizance, this petition is filed.
2. Sri K Diwakara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Abhishek Kumar, advocate for petitioners submitted, petitioners were accused no.3 to 8 in a complaint filed by respondent no.2 on 27.11.2006 alleging that at 1:00 pm on 13.11.2006 and 14.11.2006, when complainant was in her house, Govinda Reddy, his wife Jayamma, daughter Ambujakshi, son Vinay Kumar along with others accused arrived in three cars and trespassed into her house and assaulted her, pushed her out of house and threatened to kill her and her family members if they obstructed accused. And when with help of maid Lakshmi and neighbour informed her daughter Satyavati, she also arrived and witnessed incident. She also mentioned details of vehicles in which accused arrived and alleged that brothers of Govinda Reddy namely, Lakshminarayan, Prakash Babu, Jalajakshi and Veena had instigated accused with intention to grab property and sought action. It was stated that consultation with children had caused delay in lodging complaint. It was registered as Crime no.205/2006 by Attibele Police Station (Annexures-B and C).
3. It was submitted, after investigation Police filed ‘B’ Report (Annexure-D) on 25.02.2008. Without passing any orders thereon, learned Magistrate not only allowed complainant to file Protest Petition on 02.08.2008 but also recorded sworn statements of complainant, Satyavati, Lakshmi and Pramila. And though on 20.11.2011 complainant expired, respondent no.2 filed application under Section 302 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) only on 28.02.2015 claiming to be aware of incident. Application was allowed and on 04.04.2018, statement of respondent no.2 was also recorded, wherein he alleged that his mother i.e. complainant was in comatose state from 13.11.2006 to 14.11.2006 which was reason for delay in lodging complaint.
4. It was submitted even on 14.11.2018 without either accepting or rejecting ‘B’ Report, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC and on 14.03.2019 ordered summons to accused in CC no.1777/2018. Said order was challenged before this Court. Petition was earlier allowed on 01.02.2023, but Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.07.2024 allowed Crl.A. no.2860/2024 and remanded matter back to this Court for fresh consideration.
5. It was submitted learned magistrate had failed to follow procedure on filing of ‘B’ Report as clarified by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. KMC Vasantha & Anr., reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725. Besides, it was submitted plain reading of complaint showed dispute between parties was purely civil in nature. Further, original complainant did not mention presence of her son - respondent no.2 at time of incident. Therefore, after her death, prosecution could not rely on her statement and respondent no.2 would not have locus standi to continue Protest Petition. That apart incident occurred on 13.11.2006 but complaint was filed on 27.11.2006. Thus, there was delay of 14 days indicating establishing that it suffered from after- thought and ulterior intention to harass accused. On said grounds prayed for quashing of proceedings.
6. Sri MR Patil learned HCGP for respondent no.1- State opposed petition.
7. Sri HP Leeladhar learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed petition by submitting that detailed order on ‘B’ Report was not necessary. Further, sworn statement of complainant contained all necessary particulars and material collected during investigation corroborated it. Statements of Veerappa, Satyavati, Pramila and Lakshmi clearly support complainant. It was submitted that High Court
