Procedural integrity is crucial in cognizance of offenses after 'B' report rejection under IPC and SC/ST Act.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.876/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 54 , 504, 509, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Sections 3 (1)(e), 3(1)(h) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .

2. Heard Sri. Ravi L. Vaidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. S. Doreraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

3. Qua accused No.1, on 08.01.2026, this Court in Crl.P.No.10047/2025 allowed the petition in-part and remitted the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court. This Court in the aforesaid petition, has held as follows:

"8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events would not require reiteration. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant who was working as House Keeper on contract basis in the ESIC Hospital, Rajajinagar. The complainant was working for over 12 years by the time the petitioner takes position that he held in the Hospital. On some occasions, the complainant was also made to work in the premises of the petitioner. Alleging that the petitioner has harassed the complainant by misusing his official position by asking her to do body massage, wash his clothes, die his hairs and knowing fully well that she belongs to Scheduled Caste has hurled abuses, the complaint comes to be registered by the 2^nd respondent on 11-02-2022 which becomes crime in Crime No.16 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 3 54 , 504, 506, 509, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 , 3(1)(e), 3(1)(h), 3(1)(r) of the Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since the entire issue now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

The Police then conduct investigation during which time the statement of the complainant is recorded and a ‘B’ report is filed before the concerned Court. On the ‘B’report the 2^nd respondent files a protest memo contending that ‘B’ report must be rejected. The concerned Court is said to have closed the proceedings by accepting ‘B’ report contrary to law. Therefore, 2^nd respondent approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3985 of 2023 wherein this Court by order dated 23-05-2023 remitted the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to hear the 2^nd respondent and then pass orders on the ‘B’ report. It is then the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers the case against the petitioner. The order of rejection of ‘B’ report and taking of cognizance reads as follows:

“ORDERS

On going through the material on record, the complainant has made specific allegation that the complainant was forced to work in the home office of the accused situated near Rajajinagar and in fact complainant has been sexually harassed as per the complaint. In fact, the mobile phone seized of the CW-2 and evidence of other witnesses before this Court and even the protest made by the petitioners as per the paper publication and the pen drive placed on record with retard to the incident prima facie discloses there is cognizable offence being committed. However, Investigating Officer has not followed due procedure as per Rule 5, 6 and on registering the crime by the PSI, Rajajinagar, the same has been handed to ACP, Malleshwaram who has not made inspection of the premises nor obtained opinion with regard to forensic report. The mobile recordings made by Somashekar and even the B Report was accepted by the Hon’ble High Court Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3985 of 2023. On going through the materials as observed an op