CHANDRASEKHAREGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the original complainant is directed againat order da(ted 24.8.79, passed by the J.M.F.C. Hungund, in Ilkal PoMce Station Crime No. 12411978, rejecting the objections filed by him and accepting the summary "B" report submitted by the police On 4.6.78, the complainant and others were coming from Budihal to their village and when they were near Harijan Locality, they found a quarrel between Sangangouda Channanagouda Goudar and Sangappa mother Kanakawwa Madar and others. The said quarrel was with regard to some election matter. The complainant and others voluntarily went there to pacify and to arbitrate. Due to such intervention the accused challenged the complainant as to his locus standi to interfere in the matter and beat him and others by hands and other instruments . The complainant, who sustained injuries, went to the village and told this to Mudibasappa Mamallappa Angadi and others and they advised the complainant and others to go the hospital and also to the police stastion and lodge a complaint. It is said, that there also the accused went and prevented the complainant from lodging the complaint. But, however, the complainant managed to go to Hungund unnoticed by the, accused and went to the hospital where the doctor was out of station and thereafter got himself examined by one Dr. Kadi, who advised him to take rest. On the next day he went and lodged a complaint before the Ilkal Police. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police registered a crime, enquired into the matter and ultimately filed a "B" report sitating that "rt was a mistake of fact". Notice of the submission of final 'B' Report was also given to the complainant-injured 3/5 contemplated under law and the complainant protested against the acceptance of the said report by the learned. Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant and also the Assistant Public Prosecutor, overruled the objection on the ground that they do not fall under any of the provisions of S. 190, Cr.P.C. The complainant, aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magis trate, has challenged the legality aftd correctness of the said order in this revision petition.

(2.) Sri E.G. Naik, the learned counsel for th,e petitioner, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of S. 190 Cr.P.C. Elaborating his contention what he submitted was that the learned magistrate has erred in holding that there was no complaint before him to take cognizance of the same and issue of process against the accused. He brought to the notice of the Court the provisions of Section 190(1) (b) (c) and submitted that the 'B' report submitted by the police wah regard to 'the complaint lodged by the complainant itself was sufficient for the Magistrate to take or not to ta,ke cognizance under S. 190 (1) (b) & (c) Cr.P.C. There, is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. S. 190 (1) (b) and (c) reads thus:-. (b) Upon a police report of such facts: (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(3.) Therefore, it is clear that the Magistrate as enumerated in sub-section (1) of S. 190 Cr.P.C., could take cogniance of any offence upon the police report of such facts or . upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been, committed. In the instant case, there is report submitted by the police though it is a 'B' summary report. Police report would be 'A' summary, 'B' summary or 'C' summary, as contemplated under law and also a chargesheet . Mere filing of a 'B' summary does not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance u|s 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. if the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence. While dealing with this aspect of the matter the Supreme Court in at paragraph-15 has held thus: -