G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) I have heard at length Sri S. A. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

( 2 ) THE respondent-complainant lodged a complaint with the police setting out as to what the petitioners-accused had allegedly done on 23-7-1996 and which acts amounted to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the same and submitted 'b' report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The respondent-complainant filed what he called objections to 'b' report filed by the police. I would extract the whole of that document for better appreciation of rival contentions of the parties :"in the Court of the JMFC. , Yelburga c. C. No. 310/98 b. S. Madinoor v. Veerappa and 13 others objections TO 'b' F. R. FILED BY THE POLICE herein the complainant above named begs to file his objection to BFR filed by the I. O. The complainant has filed the complaint on 23-8-1996 before the concerned police. The accused have committed an offence punishable under heinous offences. In spite of that I. O. has not at all investigated the matter and not at all enquired and recorded the statement of witnesses which has sighted by the complaint. Only the intention of the I. A. to help the accused persons. This fact will also be brought to the notice of the higher officials. In fact purposely/deliberately to harass the complainant and to help the accused persons. I. A. has submitted 'b' F. R. Now the complainant is ready to prove the charges against the accused. Hence it is prayed that the 'b' F. R. filed by the police may not be accepted and complainant may be permitted to prove the charges against the accused persons before this Hon'ble Court. Hence these objections. Place: Yelburga. Date: 24-3-98. Sd/- complainant. "the learned Magistrate then took cognizance obviously under Section 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. , recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and one witness, found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners-accused and directed issuing of process against them for, the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148, I. P. C. and Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149, I. P. C. In this proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , petitioners-accused seek quashing of the above said proceeding.

( 3 ) THE only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused by their learned counsel Sri S. A. Razvi is this: The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. upon receiving a complaint in the form of a protest petition under Section 200, Cr. P. C. The said protest petition, however, is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2 (d), Cr. P. C. Therefore, there was no proper complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200, Cr. P. C. for taking cognizance, and taking of cognizance on the basis of such document, therefore is bad in law.

( 4 ) SRI Rajashekar Siri, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant would however submit that, the protest petition need not be a rewriting of all that has been stated in the earlier complaint, and that, it would suffice merely to denote the intention of the complainant that he would request the Court not to accept the 'b' report, but, on the other hand, to afford him an opportunity of proving his case and since that intention is made clear in ample measure from the protest petition as extracted above, the same needed to be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and that the said protest petition is very much a complaint within the meaning of Sections 2 (d), Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) IT is settled position, and in this regard a reference could be made to a decision of this Court in Basappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1987) Kant 994 : (1988 Cri LJ 719), that where a 'b' report is submitted, the jurisdictional Magistrate would have three alternatives viz. , either to accept the 'b' report and dr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document