- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Basappa v. State Of Karnataka
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners challenged the legality of an order passed by the Sessions Judge directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri, to reconsider a ‘B’ summary report after giving the complainant an opportunity to prove his case. The dispute originated when Respondent-2 filed a police complaint alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 447, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police investigated and submitted a ‘B’ summary report stating the complaint was false. Despite a protest memo filed by Respondent-2 against the acceptance of the ‘B’ summary report, the Magistrate accepted the report and closed the case. Respondent-2 then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the ‘B’ summary report. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the Magistrate’s order accepting the ‘B’ summary report where no criminal proceedings had been instituted.
- Whether the Magistrate was justified in reconsidering the ‘B’ summary report on the basis of a protest memo that did not constitute a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Sessions Judge erred in entertaining the revision petition since no criminal proceedings were instituted as the Magistrate had accepted the ‘B’ summary report.
- The protest memo filed by Respondent-2 was not a complaint and did not request the Magistrate to take action; hence, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to reconsider the ‘B’ summary report.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the procedural framework applicable when a police investigation results in a ‘B’ summary report. It identified three possible courses for the Magistrate: to accept the ‘B’ summary report and drop further action, to direct further investigation, or to take cognizance if the report discloses an offence. Acceptance of the ‘B’ summary report means no criminal proceedings are instituted, and thus no order in criminal proceedings exists against which revision can lie. The Court further clarified that a protest memo not framed as a complaint with allegations and a request for action does not empower the Magistrate to reconsider the ‘B’ summary report. The definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C requires an allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action, which was absent in the protest memo. Consequently, the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision and to direct reconsideration of the ‘B’ summary report.
Holding and Implications
The petition is allowed.
The impugned order of the Sessions Judge is set aside, and the Magistrate’s order accepting the ‘B’ summary report is restored. The complainant retains the liberty to file a proper complaint to the Magistrate if he so desires. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming that a Magistrate’s acceptance of a ‘B’ summary report is not subject to revision unless criminal proceedings are instituted, and that a protest memo without a formal complaint does not warrant reconsideration. No new legal precedent beyond this case’s facts is established.
Patil, J.:—
In this petition the petitioners have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Judge directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri, to consider the ‘B’ Summary report afresh after giving an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case.
2. The petition arises in this way:
Respondent-2 filed a complaint to the police, Haveri, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 447, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 I.P.C On the said complaint the police registered case in Crime No. 229 of 1982 and issued F.I.R to the Court. After completion of the investigation the police sent a ‘B’ summary report saying that the complaint was false. Although respondent-2 protested to the acceptance of the ‘B’ Summary report by filing a protest memo, the Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ summary report. Being aggrieved thereby, respondent-2 approached the Sessions Judge in revision. The Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision, having directed the Magistrate to consider the ‘B’ summary report afresh as stated earlier, the petitioners who are accused have approached this Court with this petition.
3. The contention of Sri F.V Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Sessions Judge was wholly in error, not only in entertaining the revision but also in directing the Magistrate to consider the ‘B’ summary report afresh and more so because in the protest memo filed by the 2nd respondent there was no request made to the Magistrate to take action. In other words, what he contended is that the protest memo was not in the form of a complaint and therefore the Magistrate having accepted the ‘B’ summary report and there being no criminal proceedings instituted the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision.
4. There is sufficient force in these contentions. When, on investigation, the police submit ‘B’ summary report or a ‘C’ summary report saying the complaint is false or that it is a civil dispute or that there is no evidence three courses are open to the Magistrate; (i) either to accept the ‘B’ Summary report and drop all further action, or (ii) on consideration of the ‘B’ report direct the police to make further investigation or (iii) take cognizance of the offence, if any, disclosed on the very report. Where the Magistrate, accepts the ‘B’ summary report the only course left to the Magistrate is to drop all further action. On such acceptance of the ‘B’ report he having not taken cognizance, no criminal proceedings would be said to be instituted. The revision lies against the order passed in criminal proceedings. There being no order passed by the Magistrate in criminal proceedings pending before him, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. While that is so, the Sessions Judge was not also justified in directing the Magistrate to consider the ‘B’ summary report once again after hearing to the 2nd respondent. Where there is a complaint made to the Magistrate and the Magistrate refers the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) and on investigation the police submit ‘B’ summary report and the complainant protests to the acceptance of the ‘B’ summary report, in such cases the Magistrate may take cognizance on the original complaint made to him, record - sworn statement under Section 200 Cr. P.C If there is no complaint made to the Magistrate, the question of the Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the protest memo does not arise, particularly when the protest memo is not in the form of a complaint and there are no allegations constituting any offence in the protest memo filed and there is also no request to take action. There are no such allegations in the protest memo filed in the case. Therefore, it was not a complaint within the meaning of that expression as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; because complaint as defined means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was wholly in error in entertaining the revision and directing the Magistrate to consider the case afresh. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, is set aside and the order passed by the Magistrate accepting the ‘B’ summary report is restored. The complainant is still at liberty if he so chooses in make a complaint to the Magistrate.
Alert