The complainant in CC No.125/2014 on the file of the

learned

44th

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for

brevity), is impugning the order dated 21.09.2019 rejecting

the protest memo filed by him and accepting B-report filed by

the Investigating officer.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, one Prateek

Kumar Takur is the son of the petitioner herein and he was

studying 3^rd Semester in Business Telecommunication at

Dayananda Sagar College, Bengaluru. The deceased was from

Ranchi, Jarkhand State. On fateful day, i.e., on 13.08.2009 at

about 11.45 a.m., the security guard in the college found him

falling from the top floor on the ground. Immediately, he was

shifted to the hospital. His father came to Bengaluru on

3

14.08.2009 and filed formal complaint suspecting the role of

an unseen hand in causing the death of his son, by pushing

him from the top floor of the college. An UDR No.35/2009

was registered in Kumarswamy Layout Police Station on the

basis of report submitted by S.Kumar, the employee of the

college in question. Inquest mahazar was conducted and the

postmortem examination was held. Initially, Kumarswamy

layout police conducted investigation. Later the investigation

was taken over by CID, Bengaluru and the final report was

filed on 21.10.2010, to the effect that it was not a homicidal

death but, it was either accidental or suicidal one.

3.

The petitioner being the informant filed WP

No.28092/2013 before this Court seeking to quash the said

final report filed in UDR No.35/2009 and seeking fresh

investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the

CBI'). The said petition came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2013, quashing

the final report dated 21.10.2010 in UDR No.35/2009 and

directing the Director General of police to register the FIR on

the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on

14.08.2009, and to entrust the investigation to an efficient

4

officer of rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However,

the prayer for referring the investigation to CBI was rejected.

It appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB,

Special Enquiry Squad, Bengaluru City took up investigation

and filed B-report on 22.08.2014 expressing the opinion

similore to that was expressed in the final report filed by the

earlier IO of CCB Bengaluru.

4.

The petitioner filed WP No.59438/2014 before this

Court challenging the said B report and saught for fresh

investigation by CBI. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dismissed the petition vide order dated 01.10.2015, thereby

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for fresh investigation by

CBI and observing that this is not the forum to challenge the

B-report filed by the investigating officer. A liberty was

reserved in favor of the petitioner to urge similar grounds by

the petitioner before the learned Magistrate by filing the

Protest Memo and seeking further investigation under Section

173(8) of Cr.PC., if he chooses to do so. Accordingly, the

petitioner herein filed the Protest Memo before the Trial Court

requesting to reject the B-report and order for further

investigation exercising the power under Section 173(8) of

5

Cr.PC. The Trial Court considering the contention taken by the

petitioner in the light of the B-report, rejected the protest

memo and accepted the B-report.

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

before this Court seeking to set aside the impugned order

passed by the Trial Court and to allow the protest petition by

him.

6.

Heard Sri P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the

materials including the Trial Court records.

6.

Learned

counsel

for

the

revision

petitioner

contended

that

the

revision

petitioner

suspected

the

involvement of his relatives Prabhash Chand Jha, Prakash

Chand Jha and one Kiran Pinto, as they