Victims possess the right to file protest petitions and participate in criminal proceedings, ensuring judicial awareness of their interests throughout the investigative process.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.242/2015 of Halasurgate Police Station, now pending in CC No.3813/2019 on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Halasurgate Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 and 15 others, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506(B) read with Section 149 of IPC. The investigation was undertaken and 'B' summary report came to be filed. It is stated that the learned Magistrate accepted the B-report initially on 31.12.2016, when respondent No.2 has not appeared before the Court inspite of service of notice. It is thereafter, on 27.04.2017, respondent No.2 filed protest petition seeking reopening of the case. Learned Magistrate by setting aside the order dated 31.12.2016, referred the matter for further investigation. When further investigation was pending, on 18.05.2018 respondent No.2 appears to have filed the application requesting the Trial Court to accept the B- report as he is not interested in prosecuting the matter. As per the order dated 18.05.2018, again B-report was accepted by the Trial Court by allowing the application filed by respondent No.2. It is thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are said to be the injured eye witnesses filed the protest petition. Based on the said protest petition, learned Magistrate recalled the order dated 18.05.2018 and directed the police for further investigation. It is stated that now charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Heard Sri.Satyanarayana Chalke S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rangaswamy, R. learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri Gopala Gowda B.H. learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri K.N.Shashidhara, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and

4. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following grounds in support of his contentions to quash the criminal proceedings. Firstly, when once the learned Magistrate accepts the B-report after notifying the complainant, he becomes functus officio and he has no authority or jurisdiction to accept the protest petition and to set aside the B-report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Magistrate never rejected the B-report nor accepted the protest petition, but set aside the order accepting the B-report and referred the matter for further investigation for which, he had no authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondent No.2 has filed an application stating that he has no intention to prosecute the criminal proceedings and accepting the said application, learned Magistrate again accepted the B-report. Thereby, rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that when it is only complainant/informant who can file the protest petition and when such protest petition is rejected by the Trial Court by accepting the B-report, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the witnesses to the incident could not have filed the protest petition. This procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law. Inspite of that, learned Magistrate recalled the order