When a 'B' report is filed, the Magistrate must first judiciously apply their mind to reject the report before recording the complainant's sworn statement and taking cognizance based on a protest petition, as per the mandatory procedure under Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.284/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MANGALORE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the criminal proceedings launched against them in C.C.No.284/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC pending trial before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Mangaluru.

2. The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Mangaluru in PCR No.40/2014 alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B , 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC. The private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police registered Crime No.179/2014 and took up investigation.

3. (i) The respondent No.2 claimed that one Mr. Louis Pinto was granted the land in Sy.Nos.78/4-P5, 78/6, 78/12-P1, 78/2-P1 and 161/1-P1 and Sy.No.161/2 situate at Padavu Village, Mangaluru, in all measuring 3 acres 58 cents. He had two children namely, Mr. Jerom Pinto and Mr. John Pinto. After the death of Mr. Louis Pinto, the land stood transferred to both his sons. The respondent No.2 alleged that he was looking after Mr. John Pinto and he during his lifetime, executed a Will dated 09.03.1999 in favour of respondent No.2. Mr. John Pinto died on 21.08.2005 and later, the name of respondent No.2 was entered in the revenue records. He alleged that accused No.1 claimed that Mr. Jerom Pinto executed a Will in favour of father of accused No.1 namely, Mr. B.S. Abubakker on 28.09.1983. The respondent No.2 alleged that the Will of Mr. Jerom Pinto was fake as the signature on it was forged. An enquiry was allegedly conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, who ordered the name of the children of Mr. B.S. Abubakker to be entered. The respondent No.2 challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner which is pending. The respondent No.2 therefore, alleged that the accused had also fabricated the death certificate of Mr. Louis Pinto. The respondent No.2 therefore, alleged that the accused had conspired to commit an act of forgery to cheat him.

(ii) The jurisdictional police after conducting an investigation, filed a 'B' report. The respondent No.2 filed a protest petition stating that the jurisdictional police have not investigated the case properly. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the respondent No.2, rejected the 'B' report and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 120B , 417, 420, 426, 465, 468, 473 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.

(iii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedure conducted by the learned Magistrate in first recording the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and thereafter, rejecting the 'B' report and then taking cognizance, is irregular in as much as it was incumbent upon the Court to take cognizance of the offence as provided under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and to proceed against the ac