On a protest petition, the Magistrate must record a sworn statement and give reasons before rejecting a ‘B’ report.

The petitioners sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 30805/2025, arising from Crime No. 23/2023 registered by Bagalagunte Police.

The police filed a ‘B’ report; respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition and an affidavit in the form of an examination-in-chief.

The Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ report, took cognizance and issued summons on the basis of that affidavit.

The petitioners challenged the procedure, including the absence of a speaking order.

It was also noted that the police complaint named only accused Nos. 1 to 3, whereas the private complaint named seven accused.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of the ‘B’ report and issuance of process on the basis of an affidavit, without recording the complainant’s sworn statement, constituted an erroneous procedure

2. Whether that procedural error warranted quashing the entire proceedings, and what steps the Trial Court was required to take thereafter

3. Whether the Trial Court should consider the basis for including accused Nos. 4 to 7, who were not named in the police complaint

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (also identified in the petition as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to seek quashing of the proceedings.

The Court held that, after a protest petition against a ‘B’ report, the complainant should be permitted to record a sworn statement and the Trial Court must pass an order giving reasons for accepting or rejecting the ‘B’ report and, where applicable, for issuing process.

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory provision for this procedural direction.

The Court found that the Magistrate had rejected the ‘B’ report and issued summons based on the complainant’s affidavit, rather than first recording the complainant’s sworn statement.

It considered that procedure erroneous, but concluded that the defect did not justify finally terminating the complaint.

The appropriate course was to quash the existing proceedings while allowing the complainant to give a sworn statement and requiring the Trial Court to reconsider the matter through a reasoned order.

The Trial Court was also directed to consider the justification for impleading accused Nos. 4 to 7.

The complainant was permitted to record a sworn statement before the Trial Court.

The Court must then consider that statement and any other material, give reasons if it accepts or rejects the ‘B’ report and if it issues process, and address whether there are justifiable grounds to implead accused Nos. 4 to 7.