JUDGMENT M I Arun, J. - This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) praying to quash the proceedings in PCR No.58/2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli insofar as it relates to the petitioners on a private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) r/w 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2. It is noticed from the order sheet that on earlier occasion also respondent No.2 had remained absent. 3. The complainant in PCR No.58/2010 has filed the complaint alleging that she is the owner of the properties bearing Survey Nos.89/1 and 89/2 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas situated at Solur village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and accused nos.1 to 3 in PCR No.58/2010 are guilty of impersonation and forgery by which they have created false documents and have sold the same in favour of accused nos.4 & 5 therein i.e. the petitioners herein. It is further alleged in the said complaint that when the complainant went near the properties all the accused including accused nos.4 & 5 threatened the complainant and thereby all of them including the petitioners herein are guilty of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 4. Accordingly, on the above mentioned grounds, the complainant filed PCR No.58/2010 before the JMFC, Devanahalli, who upon receipt of the complaint referred the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police, after due investigation, filed a 'B' report stating that the dispute is essentially of civil in nature and the accused are not guilty of committing the said offences. Upon receipt of 'B' report, the learned Magistrate permitted the complainant to file objections to 'B' report. After objections or protest petition was filed, the learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report but took cognizance of the offence and posted the case for sworn statement and thereafter recorded the sworn statement. 5. The petitioners herein have challenged the act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against them in PCR No.58/2010. 6. After objections or protest petition was filed, the learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report but took cognizance of the offence and posted the case for sworn statement and thereafter recorded the sworn statement. 5. The petitioners herein have challenged the act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against them in PCR No.58/2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of the said properties purchased by the petitioners herein who are accused nos.4 and 5 in PCR No.58/2010. The complainant with a view to harass the petitioners and make illegal gain at the cost of the petitioners has filed PCR No.58/2010 against the accused including the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein have purchased the said properties from several persons, including accused nos.1 to 3 in PCR No.58/2010. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent buyers for valuable consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the allegations made against them in the protest petition does not constitute any offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC or any other offences and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against them. 8. The complainant claiming to be the owner of the aforementioned properties alleging that accused nos.1 to 3 have impersonated and forged documents to have the properties in the name of accused no.1 and further alleging that they have sold the said properties illegally to accused nos.4 and 5 has filed the above case. She has further alleged that when she went near the properties all the accused including accused nos.4 and 5 threatened her of dire consequences. Thus, the allegation insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein is confined to one that of criminal intimidation. It does not pertain to forgery or impersonation. After filing of the complaint before the learned Magistrate, the same was referred for investigation. The jurisdictional police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. have filed a final report which is in the nature of 'B' report and have opined that no offence is made out against all the accused. 9. 'B' report was not rejected or accepted by the learned Magistrate immediately. The jurisdictional police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. have filed a final report which is in the nature of 'B' report and have opined that no offence is made out against all the accused. 9. 'B' report was not rejected or accepted by the learned Magistrate immediately. An opportunity was given to the complainant to file objections to the said 'B' report. The complainant has filed objections (protest petition) to the said 'B' report and the complainant was heard. The complainant has filed the following objections to the 'B' report: "3. The complainant police have filed 'B' report falsely without proper enquiry and examination and verification of the documents on which the accused persons created and impersonate and take undue advantage against to the eyes of law and the act amounts to in criminal intention and the said act is punishable under the Indian Penal Code's several sections as stated above. 4. The police have not properly investigating the matter. 5. The police have not visited spot. 6. The police have not draw mahazar at the spot. 7. The complainant produced document which are those clearly through light in the illegal act of the accused persons and it clearly establish prima facie and the complainant has also collected all the necessary certified copies from the revenue authorities and very importantly the accused Padmavathamma's husband Ramappa was a government teacher, but the complainant's father late S. Ramaiah was working as a police sub inspector in police department and for this fact and impersonation by the accused the complainant produces documents like genealogy, which was falsely created as impersonating by posing Padmavathamma as the wife of S. Ramaiah instead of Ramappa and other documents connected to the concerned offences as stated above. But, the police without proper investigation the complainant, police have filed 'B' report. 8. The act of the police by filing 'B' report is against to the natural justice and it creates irreparable loss and hardship to the complainant and the 'B' report filed by the police is very much useful to the accused persons from escaping the clutches of law and the intention of natural justice is itself vanished, if the 'B' report is accepted. Hence the complainant prays that this Hon'ble Court kindly reject/dismiss the 'B' report and permit the complainant to lead evidence and also to furnish relevant documents which clearly establish the wrong and illegal acts of the accused." 10. It is a settled proposition of law that the Magistrate upon receipt of final report from the Police is not required to accept the opinion expressed in the final report. The Magistrate is justified in hearing the complainant and upon the complainant filing a protest petition or objections to 'B' report, shall consider the same and decide whether to take cognizance of the offences or not. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.CHANDRIKA v. SANTHOSH, (2014) 13 SCC 699 at paragraph 5 has held as under: "5. The Power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence on a complaint or a protest petition on the same or similar allegations even after accepting the final report, cannot be disputed. It is settled law that when a complaint is filed and sent to police under Section 156(3) for investigation and then a protest petition is filed, the Magistrate after accepting the final report of the police under Section 173 and discharging the accused persons has the power to deal with the protest petition. However, the protest petition has to satisfy the ingredients of complaint before the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC." 12. This Court in DR. RAJESHWARI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WEST POLICE STATION, RAICHUR AND ANOTHER, (2017) ILR(KAR) 507 ) at paragraph 7 has held as under: "7. Before Adverting to the above ruling cited by the Learned Counsel in this regard, it is just and necessary for this Court to look into the protest petition filed by the complainant. It is statutorily permissible to the Learned Magistrate that, whenever 'B' final report is filed before the Court, he should go through the contents of the same. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that the contents of the 'B' final report are sufficient to constitute any offence against the accused, he can take cognizance and issue summons to the accused. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that the contents of the 'B' final report are sufficient to constitute any offence against the accused, he can take cognizance and issue summons to the accused. If for any reason, the Learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that, the 'B' final report submitted by the police has to be accepted, in such an eventuality, the Magistrate has to provide an opportunity to the complainant to contest 'B' final report by filing a protest petition. In this context, the Learned Magistrate should bear-inmind that, the said protest petition cannot be read as a first information report to the police, but the said protest petition shall contain all the ingredients basing on the factual aspects for the offence alleged against the accused. Section 190 of Cr.P.C mandates the Learned Magistrate to take cognizance only when the ingredients of any offence for the time being is in force are made-out in the protest petition, otherwise the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance, where there are no factual aspects constituting any offence in the protest petition. In this background, the protest petition has to be looked into." 13. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate after receipt of 'B' report, permitted the complainant to file a protest petition and based on the said protest petition, has taken cognizance of the offences alleged therein against the petitioners also. 14. As observed in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, Section 190 of Cr.P.C. mandates the learned Magistrate to take cognizance only when the ingredients of any offence for the time being is in force are made out in the protest petition. Otherwise, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance, where there are no factual aspects constituting any offence in the protest petition. 15. As mentioned above, the protest petition does not make a mention of the criminal intimidation held out as against the complainant by the petitioners herein. The final report of the police ('B' report) also does not throw any light on the same. In the protest petition, the complainant only alleges that the police have filed the 'B' report falsely without proper enquiry, examination and verification of the documents on which the accused persons have created and impersonated and took undue advantage and sold the properties. The final report of the police ('B' report) also does not throw any light on the same. In the protest petition, the complainant only alleges that the police have filed the 'B' report falsely without proper enquiry, examination and verification of the documents on which the accused persons have created and impersonated and took undue advantage and sold the properties. It is confined to the actions of accused nos.1 to 3 therein and not that of accused nos.4 and 5 who are the petitioners herein. Thus, even if the allegations made in the protest petition are considered to be true, it does not make out an offence as against the accused herein. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition needs to be allowed. Hence the following: ORDER The proceedings in PCR No.58/2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in taking cognizance of the offences insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.