Investigation may be deferred pending consideration of a protest petition against the ‘B’ report.

The petitioners, directors of M/s Honeygo Food India Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an FIR registered on respondent No. 2’s complaint for alleged offences under Sections 317, 318, 342, 336 and 360 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

They contended that petitioner No. 1 had earlier complained against respondent No. 2 and others concerning some of the same documents; police had filed a ‘B’ report in that matter, and petitioner No. 2 intended to challenge it

The petitioners argued that the Magistrate should have applied Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Respondent No. 2 opposed that argument, submitting that Section 233 did not apply to complaints made by different complainants

The High Court heard the petition under its inherent jurisdiction

1. Whether the FIR and complaint should be quashed because a related complaint concerning some of the same documents had resulted in a ‘B’ report that the petitioners intended to challenge

2. Whether investigation into respondent No. 2’s complaint should be deferred until the jurisdictional Magistrate considered the petitioners’ objection to the ‘B’ report

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as referred to in the petition, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The petitioners relied on Section 233 of the BNSS, while respondent No. 2 disputed its application to complaints by different complainants

The Court did not decide that dispute or cite any precedent. It treated the correctness of a filed ‘B’ report as a matter for the jurisdictional Magistrate and considered the procedural risk of potentially conflicting investigative outcomes if the two matters proceeded simultaneously

The Court noted that both parties referred to some common documents and made counter-allegations of forgery, and that a ‘B’ report had already been filed in the earlier matter

It held that the ‘B’ report’s correctness should be considered by the jurisdictional Magistrate, while also observing that respondent No. 2’s complaint warranted inquiry or investigation

To avoid the possibility of conflicting reports if the ‘B’ report were rejected and further investigation ordered, the Court deferred investigation into the challenged complaint pending the petitioners’ objection to the ‘B’ report

It disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners 15 days to file an objection to the ‘B’ report and directing that the objection be considered on its merits within 30 days thereafter

Investigation into respondent No. 2’s complaint was to remain deferred until then; further steps were left to the Trial Court or Investigating Officer in accordance with law, based on the order on the objection

All contentions were kept open