SRI GAVISIDDAPPA DIWATAR S/O MUDIYAPPA DIWATAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022
R


CNR: KAHC020123402022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102863 OF 2022

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. GAVISIDDAPPA DIWATAR S/O. MUDIYAPPA DIWATAR,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GOURI ANGALA, KOPPAL, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

2. SRI. RAVI DIWATAR S/O. SHIVAPUTRA DIWATAR,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
R/O. KINNAL ROAD, PARVATI NAGAR,
RAVI NILAY, KOPPAL, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

…RESPONDENTS











Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD


(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. VIDYAVATI KOTTURHSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC NO.514/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
REGISTERED IN CC NO.514/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL P/U/S 419, 420 AND 468 OF IPC AND
ETC.,.

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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.514/2019 before the JMFC, Koppal, for the alleged
offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal
1
Code, 1860 .

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint and the
Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and the police
after investigation have filed ‘B’ report. Thereafter, the
complainant filed a protest petition and sworn statement was
recorded and based on that, the impugned order is passed
taking cognizance for the offences alleged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that, in view of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of
Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and
this Court in

1
For short, ‘IPC’

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



2
Another
, the Court has to consider the ‘B’ report and assign
reasons to set aside the same and has to assign reasons to
take cognizance. It is submitted that without setting aside the
‘B’ report, the Court took cognizance and issued the process
Dr.
and said order is in the teeth of the law laid down in
Ravikumar
supra.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1-
State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
opposed the petition.

6. It is urged that the fraud is apparent on the face of
the record as the accused filed application for conversion of
land, in the name of a dead person, 2 years after the death of
the owner Mudiyappa. It is urged that ‘B’ report is deemed to
have been set aside as the Court has taken cognizance.

7. The Court has considered the contentions raised
and perused the records.
Dr.Ravikumar
8. In (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has held as under:
“4. On careful perusal of the entire materials on
record, it is noticed that, the police have submitted ‘B’
Summary Report before the court. As could be seen from

2
Crl.P.No.536/2017

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



the order sheet of the trial Court, there is no whisper in
the order sheet regarding accepting or rejecting of the ‘B’
report, but, simultaneously at the time of issuing
summons, ‘B’ Summary Report has been rejected. It is
noticed that, earlier no order has been passed with
reference to the ‘B’ Summary Report before taking
cognizance on the basis of the objections statement to
the ‘B’ Summary Report filed by the complainant. On the
other hand, it is seen that immediately after filing of the
protest petition, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to
provide an opportunity to the complainant to give her
sworn statement before the court and also recorded the
statement of the witnesses and thereafter, proceeded to
issue process against the accused by rejecting the ‘B’
Summary Report.

5. The procedure followed by the learned
Magistrate is not in accordance with law. 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 contents of the
investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of
the opinion that the investigation has not been
done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to
direct the Police to file the charge sheet however,
the Court may direct the Police for re or further
investigation and submit a report, which power is
inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, but before
taking cognizance such exercise has to be done.
This my view is supported by the decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR
1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh
Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of
Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between
Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal
(second head note.)

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022




ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material
available in the ‘B’ Summary Report makes out a
cognizable case against the accused and the same
is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue
process, then the court has to record its opinion
under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got
power to take cognizance on the contents of ‘B’
Summary Report and to proceed against the
accused, by issuance of process.

iii) If the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’ Summary
Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected,
then by expressing its judicious opinion, after
applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report, the
court has to reject the ‘B’ Summary Report.

iv) After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary Report, the court
has to look into the private complaint or Protest
Petition as the case may be, and contents therein
to ascertain whether the allegations made in the
Private complaint or in the Protest Petition
constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can
take cognizance of those offences and thereafter,
provide opportunity to the complainant to give
Sworn Statement and also record the statements of
the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant
as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C.

v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials
collected by the police in the report submitted
under section 173 of Cr.P.C. are not so sufficient,
however, there are sufficient materials which
disclose that a cognizable offence has been
committed by the accused, the court can still take
cognizance of the offence/s under section 190 read
with 200 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the original
complaint or the protest petition as the case may
be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn
statement of the complainant and statements of
witnesses if any and also looking into the
complainant/Protest Petition and contents therein,
if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain
the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue
of process he can still direct the investigation under
section 202 of Cr.P.C., to be made by a Police
officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to
investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of
deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. In the above
eventuality, care should be taken that, the case
shall not be referred to the Police under section
156(3) of Cr.P.C, once the magistrate takes
cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter
himself.

vi) After taking such report under section 202 of
Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on
record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there
are no grounds to proceed against the accused,
then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the
complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C.
as the case may be.

vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused,
on examination of the allegations made in the
Protest Petition or in the complaint, as the case
may be and also after perusal of the sworn
statement, then he has to record his opinion
judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by
exercising power u/s.204 of Cr.P.C..

But, none of these procedures have been followed by the
learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen
from the records, the learned Magistrate even without
rejecting the ‘B’ Summary report and without taking
cognizance of the offences, but after going through the
contents of the Protest Petition has directly provided
opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn
statement. On the basis of the contents of the Protest
Petition, and after relying upon the contents of the Protest
Petition and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate
has rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report which virtually
amounts to putting the horse behind the Cart.”

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022




9. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has
taken a view that taking cognizance on a protest petition,
without setting aside the ‘B’ report is contrary to the procedure.
The Court has quashed the order taking cognizance without
setting aside the ‘B’ report and referred the matter to the
learned Magistrate to consider the case afresh.

10. In the aforementioned case, the ‘B’ report, which
was under consideration, was for the offences under Sections
354D, 504 and 506 of IPC.

11. In the instant case, the allegation is that of forgery
and impersonation. Police have filed the ‘B’ report despite the
fact that the application for conversion of land use is filed in the
name of a dead person, two years after the death. The
complainant has produced the death certificate as well as the
application for conversion of land allegedly submitted by the
accused. Those two records would indicate that the application
for conversion was filed two years after the death of the owner.
Thus, prima facie the case for investigation/inquiry is made out.
Those two documents, namely the death certificate and the
application for conversion of land allegedly by the person who

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



had died two years prior to the application, prima facie point
towards forgery and impersonation. Thus, on the face of it the
‘B’ report appears to be erroneous.

12. In that view of the matter, even if the impugned
order is set aside on the ground that the there is no reference
to the ‘B’ report in the impugned order, and that ‘B’ report is
not formally set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Trial
Court to reconsider the matter, the Trial Court will have no
option but to take cognizance and to issue the process against
the accused in the light of the sworn statement recorded and
the documents placed before the Trial Court. That being the
position, remand is only a formality which does not achieve any
object except delaying the inquiry/trial.

13. Thus, the impugned order not setting aside the ‘B’
report, before taking cognizance and issuing process, does not
render the impugned order illegal.
14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged
that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the
Dr. Ravikumar
law laid down in supra, said judgment cannot
be construed as having laid down a straitjacket formula that in

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



all cases where there is a challenge to the ‘B’ report by way of
a protest petition, the order taking cognizance is to be set aside
and matter has to be remitted to the Trial Court if there is no
formal order setting aside the ‘B’ report.
15. If the materials placed on record, prima facie
disclose the ingredients of an offence, and the Court finds that
the matter requires inquiry or trial, and the reasons are
assigned for taking cognizance, then the order taking
cognizance and issuing process without formally setting aside
the ‘B’ report can be upheld by the High Court, and the High
Court can supplement the reasons for setting aside the ‘B’
report. Such power can very well be exercised under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16. Or even in a situation where the reasons are not
assigned for taking cognizance for an offence, and the
materials placed before the Court prima facie make out a case
for taking cognizance, then the High Court is not precluded
from substituting the reasons for taking cognizance.
17. There is no mandate that in every case, the matter
has to be remanded if the order taking cognizance is not

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



supported by reasons. In which case the matter requires to be
remitted to the Trial Court for recording reasons and in which
case the High Court itself can supplement reasons cannot be
exhaustively enumerated. Same may depend on the facts of
each case.

18. If cognizance is taken by the Court, on a material
which is not produced before the police or even if produced not
considered by the police at the time of investigation, and such
material does not form the part of ‘B’ report, then the order
taking cognizance based on a new material not considered by
the police, need not be set aside on a technicality that ‘B’
report is not formally set aside. In such cases rejection of ‘B’
report is implied.

19. In the instant case, admittedly the owner of the
property died in 1998. The application of conversion is filed in
the year 2000 in the name of the dead person and apparently
said conversion is for the benefit of the accused/petitioner.
Thus, prima facie case of forgery or impersonation is made out.
Thus, the impugned order, if not has formally set aside the ‘B’
report, is not a ground to quash the order taking cognizance.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10581
CRL.P No. 102863 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020123402022



dismissed
20. Petition is .

21. Observations made in this order are only confined
to the merits of the present petition on the scope and decision
made by the petitioner and not on the merits of the proceeding
before the Trial Court.

Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE

KGK
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11