1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF MARCH, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8952/2016

BETWEEN:

MRS. CELINE SUMAN SEQUEIRA

D/O MR. ANTONY LOBO & CARMIN LOBO,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

PANGALAYA, PARLADKA,

PUTTUR TALUK-574 201,

D.K.DISTRICT.

PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.606,

SALAH ABDULLAH BUILDING,

NEAR GIFT VILLAGE,

IMMIGRATION ROAD,

SHARIAH, U.A.E.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE

BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE,

THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

MR. VINCENT SEQUEIRA

S/O MR. JACOB SEQUEIRA,

2

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/AT BALLYA HOUSE,

MANI POST AND VILLAGE,

BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574 2011.

WORKING AT P.O.NO. 262369

DUBAI, U.A.E.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1

SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS

IN PCR NO.153/2010 AND C.C.NO.457/2015 ON THE FILE

OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., PUTTUR, D.K.

PURSUANT

THERETO

WHICH

ARE

PRODUCED

AT

DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State

and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Petitioner

has

sought

to

quash

the

entire

proceedings in PCR No.153/2010 and CC.No.457/2015

3

pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM,

Puttur.

2.

Though, large number of contentions are

urged by the petitioner, on perusal of the order dated

31.03.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate directing

summons to the petitioner, it is noticed that the said

order

suffers

from

patent

error

and

infirmities

warranting interference of this Court under Section 482

of Cr.P.C.

3.

The undisputed fact is that respondent No.2

herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C., seeking action against the petitioner for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 464,

465, 494 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4.

The learned Magistrate referred the said

complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer

4

submitted ‘B’ Summary Report. The order sheet

maintained by the learned Magistrate reveals that the

learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant.

The complainant filed his protest petition. Thereafter,

the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn

statement without rejecting ‘B’ Summary Report.

Thereafter, on considering the averments made in the

complaint and on going through the materials placed by

the complainant, took cognizance of the alleged offences

and issued summons to the petitioner. The procedure

followed by the learned Magistrate on the face of it is

contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of

West Bengal reported in (1980) 2 SCC 91, which is

followed by this Court in Dr.Ravikumar Vs. Mrs.

K.M.C.Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018

KAR 1725. In the above decision, procedure to be

followed by the learned Magistrate in the matter of

5

accepting or rejecting ‘B’ report has been elaborately

laid down as under:

“5.

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 conte