The petitioner in this petition calls in question an order

dated 2.12.2020, by which the Principal Senior Civil Judge and

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, took cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 323, 354, 506

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

registers C.C.No.482 of 2020. The petitioner also calls in

question entire proceedings in C.C.No.482 of 2020.

2.

Heard Shri Jaysham Jayasimha Rao, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Shri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel

for respondent no.1 and Shri Ramesh Chigari, learned High

Government Pleader for respondent no.2.

3.

Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:-

3

a)

The petitioner is involved in the craft and trade of

gold. The 1^st respondent is claimed to have defrauded the

petitioner in one of the transactions between them. The

petitioner sets the criminal law in motion against the 1^st

respondent by registration of a complaint. On doing so, the 1^st

respondent registers a complaint against the petitioner on

2.7.2020 before the jurisdictional police. Pursuant to the said

complaint, the police registered N.C.No.74 of 2020. Aggrieved

by non-registration of FIR on the complaint registered by the 1^st

respondent, the 1^st respondent files a complaint against the

petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 447,

323 and 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC invoking Section

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the

Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Karwar, on 12.8.2020. The

complaint is registered as PCR No.6 of 2020.

b)

On registration of the said complaint, the learned

Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. by his order dated 19.8.2020 and later an FIR came to

be registered on the said complaint for the aforesaid offences in

Crime No.9 of 2020. The police began investigation in to the

4

offences as alleged. While the investigation was in progress, the

trial Court on 3.11.2020 posts the matter for hearing the

complainant on maintainability of the complaint and records

sworn statement of the complainant CW.1 as also marks Exs.C1

to C5, further records the sworn statement of two other persons

CW.2 and CW.3 and posts the matter for orders on 2.12.2020.

After recording of the aforesaid statements, the trial Court by

order dated 2.12.2020 takes cognizance of the offences

punishable under Sections 447, 504, 323, 354 and 506 read

with Section 34 of the IPC and registers a criminal case in

C.C.No.482 of 2020 and issues process against the petitioner.

c)

All the aforesaid events before the trial Court have

happened after the trial Court directed the police to investigate

into the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police

after investigation filed ‘B’ summary report before the trial Court

on 14.12.2020 holding that none of the offences alleged are

tenable against the petitioner. The situation that emerges is the

trial Court after having ordered investigation, without waiting for

the out-come of the investigation, recorded the sworn

statement and took cognizance of the offences and after taking

5

cognizance the report of the police is filed, which is a ‘B’

summary report. It is this action of the trial Court taking

cognizance of the offence that is called in question in the subject

petition.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently argue and contend that the procedure

adopted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law as having

ordered investigation on 10.9.2020 it ought to have awaited the

report of investigation and then followed the procedure as

contemplated in law. During the pendency of investigation the

statements are recorded and cognizance is taken after which the

Police filed a ‘B’ report in the matter. Therefore all that the trial

Court has done between the direction to conduct investigation

and taking cognizance of the matter are all acts without

jurisdiction.

5.

On other hand the learned counsel appearing for the

complain