ORDER : Heard. 2. The petitioner filed complaint dated 31.08.2013 before the Inspector of Police, Station Bazar Police Station against respondent Nos.2 to 10 alleging that on 18.08.2013 at 7.30 p.m. the accused persons vandalized his shop named Rose Ladies Corner situated at Aiwane Shahi Road, Kalaburagi and in that process beaten the boys working in his shop and on such assault those boys ran away from the spot. It is further alleged that the accused robbed Rs.61,500/-from the cash counter and artificial jwelleries worth Rs.15,000/-. 3. The Station Bazar Police registered the said complaint in Crime No.199/2013 against respondent Nos.2 to 10 for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC. On conducting the investigation, the said police filed final report dated 30.11.2013 stating that no case is made out to proceed against the accused persons. On such report, the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi issued notice of the report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his protest petition to the report to substantiate his protest petition and he was permitted to lead evidence. Accordingly, he got himself examined as PW.1 and got examined three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. 4. Thereafter, the Trial Court on hearing the petitioner, by the order dated 05.10.2015 accepted the ‘B’ report submitted by the Investigating Officer holding that the material placed by the petitioner in support of the protest petition does not make out a case to take cognizance. 5. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Revision Petition No.42/2016. The Sessions Judge by the order dated 21.11.2016 dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the Trial Court holding that the material placed before the Court does not make out an offence to issue process. 6. Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the order of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge referred to above and submits that the Courts below have failed to make out difference between taking cognizance of the offence and taking cognizance of the offenders. She further submits that the material produced before the Magistrate in support of the protest petition has made out a case to take cognizance and issue process. In support of her contention, she relies upon the following judgments: 1. Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947 . 2. She further submits that the material produced before the Magistrate in support of the protest petition has made out a case to take cognizance and issue process. In support of her contention, she relies upon the following judgments: 1. Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947 . 2. Kumari Jayashree Dhondiba Sherkhan vs. Shri.Shivaji Sakaram Sherkhane and Others ILR 2014 KAR 3560. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to support the impugned orders and submits that as per Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and even as per the judgment in Smt.Nagawwa’s case referred to supra, the Court can take cognizance and issue process only if allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out case against the accused. He submits in this case, the complainant is not an eyewitness, in the complaint, he does not name PW.4 as eyewitness, the shop boys named in the complaint are not examined to substantiate the protest petition. He submits that CW.4 who is cited as eyewitness, in his statement before the Court does not name respondent Nos.2 to 10 as culprits, CW.2 does not speak about vandalizing of the shop or robbing of articles from the shop, he only states that 4 to 5 ladies came to the shop of the complainant, CW.2 is not named in the complaint as eyewitness. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the impugned orders of Courts below have caused any injustice to the petitioner or amount to abuse of process of Court warranting interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 9. As already pointed out, the petitioner filed a complaint dated 31.08.2013 against ten persons namely (1) Smt.Shahana (2) Smt.Durdana (3) Smt.Khairun (4) Smt.Massarrat (5) Attaur Rahman (6) Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed (7) Shafiqur Rahman (8) Khasim, (9) Mahmood Patel (10) Jameel Ahmed. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 18.08.2013 at 7.30 p.m. aforesaid accused persons assaulted complainant’s shop boys, vandalized the shop and robbed cash of Rs.61,500/-and artificial jwelleries worth Rs.15,000/-. 10. In the complaint neither CW.2 – Mohammed Rafiq nor CW.4 – Syed Rizwan namely the petitioner’s son are cited as eyewitnesses. The petitioner is not an eyewitness to the incident. 10. In the complaint neither CW.2 – Mohammed Rafiq nor CW.4 – Syed Rizwan namely the petitioner’s son are cited as eyewitnesses. The petitioner is not an eyewitness to the incident. For the first time in his statement the petitioner named CW.4 as an eyewitness. Though the petitioner initially files complaint against ten persons, in this petition he has only named nine persons as accused. Even his statement before the Court, the petitioner did not name CW.2 as eyewitness. 11. CW.4 only states that ten persons tresspassed into the shop robbed cash and articles and assaulted him and his elder brother Irfan and shop boys. He does not name present respondent Nos.2 to 10 or any other person as culprits. 12. Having regard to these facts, the Courts below have rightly held that no case is made out. The judgment in Kumari Jayashree referred to supra is rendered based on the judgment in Smt. Nagawwa’s case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing under which circumstances an order passed under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. taking cognizance and issuing summons can be quashed has held as follows: “5. x x x x Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside: (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolute no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or no materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Thus, it is clear that if the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the complaint/protest petition taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused process cannot be issued. The present case lies under that category. 14. Having considered the material on record, the Courts below have accepted the ‘B’ report submitted by the Investigating Officer. By the impugned orders, no injustice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.