The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 06.11.2021, in PCR.No.1731/2021, passed by the

37^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,

accepting the 8B9 report dated 28.06.2021 and terminating the

proceedings initiated in the aforesaid case.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar H., learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri Shankar H.S., learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner registers private complaint invoking Section

200 of the Cr.P.C. seeking reference of the matter for

investigation against one Ms. Madhavi, for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of the IPC. After

reference of the matter to the police for investigation, the police

3

file a 8B9 summary report upon which, the learned Magistrate

closes the proceedings. Against the said closure of the said

proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The closure of the proceedings by the learned Magistrate

on filing of the 8B9 report is on the score that the petitioner

despite being served with the copy, did not chose to file a protest

petition or appear before the Court.

5. The petitioner works as a Head Constable in the Border

Security Force. He was transferred from Bengaluru, Jammu

and Kashmir on 13.06.2020. Pursuant to the said movement

order, the petitioner assumed charge of the post at Jammu and

Kashmir on 17.06.2020, during the pendency of the proceedings

that he had initiated before the learned Magistrate. The

proceedings came to be closed by the order of the learned

Magistrate dated 06.11.2021, on noticing the fact that the police

have filed a report of service upon the petitioner, without hearing

the petitioner. It is the termination of these proceedings that

drives the petitioner to this Court.

4

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither heard in the matter

nor the procedure stipulated as to how the 8B9 report is to be

dealt with, is also not followed by the learned Magistrate.

Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of

the learned Magistrate on the 8B9 report that is filed before the

Court strictly in consonance with the directions rendered in the

case of Dr. RAVIKUMAR VS. MRS.K.M.C.VASANTHA AND

ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 Kar 1725, wherein, this Court

has held as follow:

<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

5

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 between Abhinandan Jha and

Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench

decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC

91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of

West Bengal (second head note.)

ii) If the court is of the opinion that the

material available in the 'B' Summary Report

makes out a cognizable case against the

accused and the same is sufficient to take

cognizance, and to issue process, then the

court has to record its opinion under Sec.204

of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got p