JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38088 of 2015, by which the petition was disposed off observing that the petitioner shall file protest petition against the filing of ‘B’ report and insofar as challenge to charge sheet filed against petitioner, observed that, the petitioner has to face the proceedings, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the order dated 04.07.2015 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.15933 of 2015. The petitioner who claims to be an Engineer in Computer Science formed a Company along with others, by name M/s. Crudus Power Technologies Private Limited, which would develop software and electronic hardware for control equipments of street lighting and other allied activities. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents No.2 and 3 had promised to invest in the Company and they were responsible for financial management and marketing of the products of the Company. The share holding of the Company was held at 35% by the petitioner and 65% by the respondents No.2 and 3. The Registered Office was at Mysuru and it was decided to shift the same to Bengaluru. It is stated that there were many persons who had offered to invest in the business of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.11.2014 at around 8.00 p.m., respondents No.2 and 3 came to the registered office at Bannerghatta Road with others, threatened the petitioner with false FIR and also threatened the petitioner to shoot him. It is also stated that they started questioning the petitioner and also they started manhandling the petitioner. By threatening the petitioner, the respondents got signed certain documents and threatened to kill the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner was forced to sign on more than 25 blank cheque leaves of the petitioner. The petitioner’s email passwords, bank account, bank pin were also forcibly taken. On the next day morning, the petitioner was made to transfer Rs.10,00,000/from his personal account to the Company’s account. It is stated that all these were made by respondents No.2 and 3 to take over the entire business of the Company and its products. The petitioner’s email passwords, bank account, bank pin were also forcibly taken. On the next day morning, the petitioner was made to transfer Rs.10,00,000/from his personal account to the Company’s account. It is stated that all these were made by respondents No.2 and 3 to take over the entire business of the Company and its products. On 25.11.2014, the petitioner was forcibly taken to Koppal to a Farmhouse belonging to 2nd and 3rd respondents. While moving towards Koppal, the petitioner received a phone call from the Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station and he wanted the petitioner to lodge a complaint, but the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police on the next day explaining the entire incident. The case was registered in Crime No.31 of 2015. Even though complaint was registered, the Police had not made any progress or had made any investigation, whereas the complaint filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 was investigated and charge sheet was filed. With regard to the complaint filed by the petitioner, only ‘B’ report was filed. Challenging both, filing of the charge sheet and filing of ‘B’ report, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The petitioner contended that no proper investigation is made either on his complaint or on the complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3. The respondents denied the allegations of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has remedy of filing protest memo against the filing of ‘B’ report and insofar as filing of the charge sheet is concerned, the petitioner will have to face the trial wherein he would get an opportunity to defend himself. The learned Single Judge on considering the writ petition disposed off the same by observing that the petitioner shall file protest memo against the ‘B’ report and the petitioner would have to face proceedings and contest the same where charge sheet is filed. Against which, the petitioner is in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been denied right to fair and proper investigation. The respondent No.1 without proper investigation on the complaints made by the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3, filed ‘B’ report on the complaint filed by the petitioner and filed charge sheet on the complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3. The respondent No.1 without proper investigation on the complaints made by the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3, filed ‘B’ report on the complaint filed by the petitioner and filed charge sheet on the complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3. It is stated that there was no fair investigation. It is submitted that there are prima facie materials to file charge sheet on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and the first respondent could not have filed ‘B’ report. 5. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents would justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the remedy of the petitioner is to file protest memo and to face the trial. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed off the writ petition holding that the petitioner shall file protest petition where ‘B’ report is filed and to face trial where the charge sheet is filed against him. The petitioner has filed complaint against respondents No.2 and 3 which is registered as Crime No.31 of 2015. The petitioner had alleged that the 2nd and 3rd respondents under threat had obtained signatures on the blank stamp papers and on blank cheque leaves. It is also alleged that on 29.11.2014, respondents No.2 and 3 got transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from his Savings Bank Account. Respondents No.2 and 3 had also filed complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.40 of 2015 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police had filed ‘B’ report insofar as the complaint filed by the petitioner and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on the complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no proper investigation before filing either ‘B’ report or charge sheet. ‘B’ report is already filed on the complaint filed by the petitioner. When the ‘B’ report is filed, always it is open for the complainant to file protest memo and to contest the same. If the court is convinced on the protest memo, it is always open for the Court to take cognizance and to issue summons. ‘B’ report is already filed on the complaint filed by the petitioner. When the ‘B’ report is filed, always it is open for the complainant to file protest memo and to contest the same. If the court is convinced on the protest memo, it is always open for the Court to take cognizance and to issue summons. It is in this background, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition observing that the petitioner to file protest memo to the ‘B’ report filed on his complaint. Further, the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner on the complaint filed by respondents No.2 and 3. When the charge sheet is filed, it is open for the accused either to contest or to seek for discharge. Challenge to the chargesheet under Article 226 of the constitution of India could be entertained in exceptional cases. This is not an exceptional case to interfere with the chargesheet. In the case on hand also, it is open for the petitioner either to contest or to seek discharge. But, it is not open for the petitioner to direct the Investigation in the manner he suggests. It is for the authorities to investigate and to take further course of action. The petitioner has not made out any ground to indicate that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any error. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.