Cognizance may stand despite non-formal rejection of a ‘B’ report where materials prima facie disclose an offence.

Respondent No. 2 instituted a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation. The police submitted a ‘B’ report, following which the complainant filed a protest petition.

The Magistrate recorded the complainant’s sworn statement and thereafter took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued process against the petitioner.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the Magistrate had taken cognizance without first formally considering and rejecting the ‘B’ report, contrary to Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha.

In particular, an application for conversion of land had allegedly been filed in the name of Mudiyappa, the deceased owner, after his death.

The Court noted that the owner had died in 1998, whereas the conversion application was filed in 2000, apparently for the benefit of the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the principles governing a police ‘B’ report and protest petition: ordinarily, the Magistrate must apply its mind to the ‘B’ report, record reasons for rejecting it, and then proceed on the complaint or protest petition under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC; where further investigation is required, the Magistrate may act under Sections 156(3) or 202 CrPC, while Sections 203 and 204 govern dismissal of the complaint and issuance of process respectively.

The Court considered Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha, Crl.P. No. 536/2017, which prescribed these procedural steps.

The Court relied on Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117, and Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, (1980) 2 SCC 91, concerning the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation but not to compel the police to file a charge-sheet.

However, the Court held that Dr. Ravikumar did not establish an inflexible rule requiring remand in every case where the ‘B’ report was not formally rejected.

If independent or newly produced material prima facie discloses an offence, rejection of the ‘B’ report may be implied, and the High Court may supplement or substitute reasons under Section 482 CrPC.

Although the Magistrate had not expressly recorded an order rejecting the ‘B’ report before taking cognizance, the Court held that this procedural omission was not decisive in the present case.

The death certificate and the land-conversion application prima facie indicated that an application had been made in the name of a person who had died two years earlier, thereby supporting allegations of forgery and impersonation.

The materials placed before the Magistrate justified an inquiry and disclosed the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.

Since the material relied upon by the complainant substantially undermined the correctness of the ‘B’ report, its rejection could be treated as implied.

The Court further reasoned that remanding the matter merely for a formal rejection of the ‘B’ report would serve no useful purpose because, on the available material and sworn statement, the Magistrate would necessarily be required to take cognizance and issue process.

The apparent discrepancy between the date of the deceased owner’s death and the subsequent filing of the conversion application constituted sufficient prima facie material of forgery or impersonation.

The criminal petition was accordingly dismissed, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 514/2019 for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC were permitted to continue.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the petition and would not affect the merits of the trial proceedings.