Karnataka HC Leaves Police ‘B’ Report In Place While Civil Suit Tests Woman’s Claim To Be Muniswamappa’s Wife

In brief

The question

Whether the order accepting the ‘B’ report should be set aside because the petitioner’s sworn statement was not recorded and the procedure allegedly contravened *Dr. Ravikumar*.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition and declined to set aside the order accepting the ‘B’ report.

It also directed

It clarified that it had expressed no view on the merits of the pending civil suits and kept all contentions open.

01Facts

The petitioner, the complainant in Crime No. 19/2018, challenged the JMFC, Nelamangala’s order dated 23 December 2025 accepting the police ‘B’ report concerning allegations including fabrication of records, impersonation and cheating under various provisions of the IPC

¶ 2–4

She objected to the report and contended that it had been accepted without recording her sworn statement, contrary to *Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha*, Crl.P. No. 536/2017.

¶ 5–6

Respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner had not offered to give a sworn statement despite four adjournments and that the Magistrate had considered the objections and given reasons for accepting the report.

¶ 7

Civil suits concerning the same property and allegations were also pending.

¶ 8–9

02Issues

i.Whether the order accepting the ‘B’ report should be set aside because the petitioner’s sworn statement was not recorded and the procedure allegedly contravened *Dr. Ravikumar*.

¶ 5–7, 17

ii.Whether the pending civil dispute concerning the alleged marital status and documents warranted declining to quash the order accepting the ‘B’ report.

¶ 8–15

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as reflected in the petition’s reference to Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petitioner relied on *Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha*, Crl.P. No. 536/2017, concerning the procedure for considering a ‘B’ report; the Court held that its ratio did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case, including the petitioner’s failure to offer to give a sworn statement.

¶ 5–6, 17

The Court also considered the existence of pending civil proceedings concerning the parties’ dispute and the accused’s claimed status.

¶ 8–15

Provisions in the judgment · 20 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 18 provisions

Section 191 Section 192 Section 193 Section 196 Section 197 Section 198 Section 415 Section 416 Section 417 Section 418 Section 419 Section 420 Section 463 Section 464 Section 467 Section 468 Section 470 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the dispute involved whether accused No. 1 was the wife of Muniswamappa and whether records had been used to support that claim.

¶ 11

It considered that civil suits concerning the same property and issues had been pending for several years and that the civil court could determine the disputed status on evidence.

¶ 8–9, 12–13

The Court observed that, depending on the civil court’s findings, the complainant could pursue appropriate criminal prosecution after disposal of the civil case; it also noted that the petitioner had not offered to give a sworn statement after filing objections to the ‘B’ report.

¶ 14–17

In those circumstances, it distinguished *Dr. Ravikumar* and declined to interfere with the Magistrate’s order.

¶ 17