Accused sought quashing of proceedings after a Magistrate recalled his acceptance of a 'B' summary report on a protest petition filed by injured eyewitnesses, not the informant. The Court held victims under Section 2(wa) CrPC have locus to file protest petitions and the Magistrate may recall such an order; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 51134 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU - 560 072
Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka
NAGAR, BENGALURU
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
ALSO AT OFFICE NO.18, 2ND FLOOR, HMS COMPLEX, BEHIND HALASURUGATE COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 002
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. GOPALA GOWDA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. K.N. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-F IN CRIME NO.242/2015 DATED 31.10.2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL.CMM, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3813/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VITH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Cr.No.242/2015 of Halasurgate Police Station, now pending in CC No.3813/2019 on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
the Trial Court by allowing the application filed by respondent No.2. It is thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are said to be the injured eye witnesses filed the protest petition. Based on the said protest petition, learned Magistrate recalled the order dated 18.05.2018 and directed the police for further investigation. It is stated that now charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
to accept the protest petition and to set aside the B-report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Magistrate never rejected the B-report nor accepted the protest petition, but set aside the order accepting the B-report and referred the matter for further investigation for which, he had no authority.
filed by the complainant. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that when it is only complainant/informant who can file the protest petition and when such protest petition is rejected by the Trial Court by accepting the B-report, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the witnesses to the incident could not have filed the protest petition. This procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law. Inspite of that, learned Magistrate recalled the
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
order 18.05.2018 and directed for further investigation, for which he has no authority.
1 (1985) 2 SCC 537
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
2 ILR 2018 KAR 1725
HC-KAR
not contemplate the procedure to issue notice to the victims or
the injured on filing of 'B' summary report. The Trial Court rightly issued the notice only to the informant and later accepted the 'B' report. The witnesses being the injured filing the Protest Petition and the same being accepted by the learned Magistrate is unknown to law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
a situation where it is held that even the injured can appear before the learned Magistrate and file the Protest Petition, even though he is not entitled for any notice from the learned Magistrate.
3 ILR 2000 KAR 4015
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
HC-KAR
again appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed the memo stating that he has no objection to accept the B-report by the learned Magistrate once again. The said memo was accepted by the learned Magistrate and even though, further investigation in the matter was pending, learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the B-report, on the basis of the memo that was filed by respondent No.2.
also the injured eyewitness. They are the victims as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. They after coming to know about closure of complaint by accepting the B-report, appears to have filed the protest petition and also an application to recall the order accepting B-report. The impugned order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the application and directing the Investigating Officer to file the final report.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
learned Magistrate will become a functus officio and cannot recall his own order. On the facts of the case, it was decided holding that it is only the complainant who is entitled for notice after filing of B-report and the victims can appear voluntarily to oppose acceptance of B-report. It is also held that non issuance of notice to the victims individually will not vitiate the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4 1966(1) Mys.L.J. 127
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
Magistrate has always got power to order for further investigation in the case even after acceptance of 'B' report submitted by the police.
5 (2022) 9 SCC 321
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
be heard at every crucial stage of criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant of cancellation of bail, as the same was duly recognized by the Committee.
6 2019 (2) SCC 752
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
" 22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of “State” in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a “victim” of the crime.
23. A “victim” within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
is also a “victim”, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an “informant”, and similarly, a “victim” need not be the complainant or informant of a felony."
"24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1 First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2 Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceedings, they must be accorded with an
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a Court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses."
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
the same are sufficient to reject 'B' report or to refer the matter for further investigation, if he is of the opinion that such further investigation may throw much light and enable him to pass necessary orders on the protest petition or the application filed by the victim. I do not find any illegality if such a course of action is adopted by the learned Magistrate.
NC: 2026:KHC:2909 WP No. 51134 of 2019
HC-KAR
whatsoever is caused to the petitioners from the order passed
by the learned Magistrate on the basis of application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are admittedly the victims. By way of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has called upon the final report by the Investigating Officer, the same will be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law in the presence of the petitioners - accused, respondent Nos.2 - the informant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 - the injured eye witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief in the present petition. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
PNV/BH/MKM - CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether injured eyewitnesses who are not informants have locus to file a protest petition against acceptance of a 'B' summary report.
Whether a Magistrate can recall his own order accepting a 'B' report and direct further investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and anotherExplained¶21
(1985) 2 SCC 537 · Who else cites this
Dr. Ravikumar Vs Mrs. K.M.C. VasanthaReferred¶10
ILR 2018 KAR 1725 · Who else cites this
Lagamanna Gangappa Salagere Vs Sri LaxmanRelied on¶22
ILR 2000 KAR 4015 · Who else cites this
Kishan rao Vs State of MysoreReferred¶22
1966(1) Mys.L.J. 127
Jagjeet Singh and Others Vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu and anotherApplied¶24
(2022) 9 SCC 321 · Who else cites this
Mallikarjun Kodagali Vs State of KarnatakaReferred¶26
2019 (2) SCC 752 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri Harish M T
Madhusudhan S/O Siddegowdru
Venkatesh M.K.
The State of Karnataka by Halasurgate Police Station
Sri Ramanappa S/O Veerabhadrappa
Anantha Murthy B G
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
